Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Assisted Places

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the assisted places scheme.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): The assisted places scheme continues to benefit children from lower-income families. At present, more than 27,000 children have assisted places and 17 more schools will join the scheme this September.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department spends £3,400 per year on each assisted place compared with less than £2,000 on the education of each secondary school pupil in St. Helens? As St. Helens is about to be poll tax-capped and will have to adjust its expenditure on education, how can the Secretary of State justify spending so much money on the education of an elite at the expense of children in St. Helens and elsewhere?

Mr. MacGregor: The community charge capping in St. Helens is a judgment on the authority's budget by reference to criteria that apply to all authorities. What an authority decides to do as a result of charge capping is a matter for that authority in the light of its own spending priorities. Broadly speaking, the amount of money spent on assisted places nationally is roughly the same per pupil as is spent on a secondary school pupil. I am happy to elaborate on that. The assisted places scheme represents just under half of 1 per cent. of the estimated total expenditure on schools in 1989–90. It is money well spent because it is simply repaid by the excellent examination results that those pupils achieve and it considerably extends parental choice.

Mr. Ashby: I have a school in Leicestershire that has reopened after having been closed by the local authority. It is a school of great excellence, with 471 pupils. It is opening a preparatory school with 120 pupils and the headmaster would dearly like to provide assisted places to pupils who want to share in the excellence of his school.

Will my right hon. Friend consider easing the conditions for the number of sixth form pupils so that such schools can join in the assisted places scheme at an early stage?

Mr. MacGregor: We have a fixed sum for assisted places. I am always prepared to consider additional applications, as was demonstrated by my announcement a moment ago that 17 more schools are coming into the scheme in September. However, it is necessary to look at each school to see whether it fits the conditions before one takes a decision. I should be happy to do that.

Student Grants

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about students' grants.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend periodically receives representations about a variety of aspects of the student grant system.

Mr. Bennett: Given the Minister's growing reputation as a joker, can he explain to the House the irony of the student loans scheme? Had the Prime Minister's target of nought per cent. inflation been achieved, the loans scheme would never have been phased in, but with an inflation rate of 9 or 10 per cent., it will be phased in very quickly. Does the Minister accept that the entire scheme has been a giant hoax, proving to the House of Commons that any crazy scheme can get through it if has the support of the Prime Minister and the Whips?

Mr. Jackson: I should like to find a witty response to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall simply tell him that with the addition of the loan to the grant, Britain now has the highest level of student support of the major European countries, and the proportion of students for whom student support is available is second only to that in the Netherlands, where the loan element is larger than ours. Not only have we won the votes, but we have won the argument.

Mr. Wells: Has my hon. Friend received representations, as I have, from students in high-rent cities such as Oxford and London who are finding it extremely difficult to know how to budget for the next academic year following the announcement of his scheme?

Mr. Jackson: We have had many discussions. I had a discussion with two Members of the House of Lords on that point only this morning. There will be a 25 per cent. increase in resources available to students this year, when the loan comes in, which, together with the access funds, will meet students' needs.

Teachers (Overseas Advertising)

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue


guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The recruitment of teachers is the responsibility of local education authorities and the governors of schools. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue guidelines to local authorities regarding the recruitment of overseas teachers.

Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Minister assure the House that no one who applies from overseas for a teaching post in Britain will get it unless he or she has been vetted according to the national standards?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. No teacher can teach in our schools until he or she meets the minimum criteria for qualified teacher status—a grade C GCSE or equivalent in maths and English, some two years in full-time higher education and at least a two-year probationary period in the school.

Dr. Reid: With respect, that is not what was asked. We are asking about the vetting procedures for those with criminal records who are teaching our children. Is the Minister aware that such vetting procedures can take up to 10 weeks and that, because of the Government-created chronic shortage of teachers, some of the applicants, even from the United Kingdom, are in post for a considerable period before the procedures are completed? Is she further aware that the situation is worse for overseas applicants? Why will not the Government issue guidelines to local education authorities informing them which overseas countries issue similar good conduct certificates or operate similar vetting procedures? Why must our children remain at risk because of the Government's lack of activity?

Mrs. Rumbold: If there is a lack of activity, I shall certainly instruct the Department to consider it.

Mr. Madel: Teachers from overseas and in this country often find housing costs a deterrent to teaching in certain areas. Will my hon. Friend ask English county councils to publish a list of the unoccupied property that they own and ask them what they are prepared to do about renting it to teachers?

Mrs. Rumbold: That is a helpful suggestion. Many of the home counties and London are finding it more difficult to accommodate teachers, and teachers are finding it more difficult to find accommodation because of the high price of housing. Local authorities are closely considering the problem, but my hon. Friend's suggestion is worth investigating.

Student Loans

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any recent representations regarding the implementation of the student loan scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jackson: Constructive discussions are taking place with the higher education institutions about their role in confirming their students' eligibility for a loan. Following Parliament's approval of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, the Government's objective remains to have the scheme in place for autumn 1990.

Mrs. Ewing: Why do not the regulations allow additional time for Scottish students to repay their loan, given that many undertake a four-year degree course? Is that a misunderstanding of the Scottish system, similar to that demonstrated on the law on the repayment of loans by minors, or is it deliberate?

Mr. Jackson: We thought long and hard about that. We provided special terms for those on five-year courses or longer. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide them for students on four-year courses. The expected repayment, which will be made only by graduates on incomes higher than £11,500 a year, will not be more than £400 a year, whether they are on a three, four or five-year course. That is a reasonable sum to expect graduates to repay.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister confirm what I understand him to have said last night—that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted on the student loan regulations? Does not that show extraordinary incompetence, equalled only by the evident contempt for Scotland and for Scottish law? Will the Minister explain simply to the House what the last-minute, hasty additions to the regulations in relation to Scotland mean?

Mr. Jackson: We discussed all this last night. I confirm that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted because there was not a specific matter on which they could advise. Different legal opinions have been expressed, but the Government's firm view is that the loan is enforceable. The regulations bear on the issue of ratification at 18 and do not necessarily determine the question of enforceability. The hon. Gentleman is on to a loser on this point.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

Mr. MacGregor: The governing bodies of 66 schools have published proposals for grant-maintained status so far. I have approved 44 and rejected 12 of the proposals that have reached me for decision.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained status is an excellent way of improving choice and diversity in education? Does he share my surprise that, despite its honeyed words about freedom and choice for parents, the Labour party is pledged to abolish grant-maintained status if it is ever elected to government?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is more, our new policy for grant-maintained status is proving popular. The number of grant-maintained schools in operation this coming September will be double that of last September. It is clear that parents are opting for grant-maintained schools as applications for places are up by 40 per cent., so it is also clear that parents, governors, head teachers and teachers like grant-maintained schools. Only the Opposition reject that extended opportunity for parental choice. I suspect that, as with so many of their other policies, they will think again in due course.

Mr. Sedgemore: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when, in an interview in 1987,


she said. "I think that most schools will opt out"? Can he also confirm that she was wrong when she said subsequently that by schools opting out, the poll tax would be reduced?

Mr. MacGregor: It is quite clear that from an early—[Interruption.] It is quite clear that it takes some time to go through the process of becoming a grant-maintained school because there is an extended ballot procedure. The fact that the number of grant-maintained schools has doubled within a year, that there are more and more applications and that there is wider and greater interest shows that grant-maintained status is a popular approach. I should be delighted to see more schools adopting that approach.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members widely welcome the concept of grant-maintained schools? Is he further aware that if we dropped the wholly artificial threshold of 300 pupils necessary for admission to grant-maintained status, we should achieve a far greater number of schools, especially village schools, applying for such status? I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of that suggestion.

Mr. MacGregor: We are already seeing an increasing number of schools applying for grant-maintained status and the reason is the success of the scheme for the schools that have applied so far. I shall keep the issue of the minimum figure, to which my hon. Friend referred, under review.

Mr. Straw: Was the Secretary of State consulted by the Prime Minister when she said, at the Conservative women's conference, that the poll tax could be reduced by schools opting out, and that there could be repeated and regular ballots for opting out?

Mr. MacGregor: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on many occasions the grant-maintained schools and the success of the scheme.

Mr. Straw: When?

Mr. MacGregor: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed it on many occasions. He never wants to listen to the answers to his questions. We have also said that we shall monitor carefully the attitude of the local education authorities, which is one of the points that my right hon. Friend made at that conference. If there were evidence of a general problem, I should consider further legislation if necessary. On the wider question, if many schools obtained grant-maintained status, it might be necessary to review the funding methodology.

Higher Education Colleges

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he is using to designate polytechnic status for colleges of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have accepted the advice of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on such criteria. The criteria specify minimum student numbers in an institution, both overall and within a range of academic programmes; the minimum proportion of students at degree level; and a requirement that the institution be accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards.

I have recently accepted the PCFC's advice on institutions that fulfil the criteria and Humberside college of higher education and Dorset institute are to be designated for the coming academic year.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high quality of further education in Bolton? Does he agree that there is far too much academic snobbery in this country, and surely, if Japan has more than 340 universities, we could have a few more polys?

Mr. MacGregor: Two more polytechnics are coming in this September. I am well aware of the excellent quality of many of our colleges of further education. I have said that I see the designation of new polytechnics as a continuing process and I shall be happy to receive the advice of the PCFC at any time that another institution has met the criteria.

Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he prevents polytechnics calling themselves "universities" when there is already such diversity in the university system that some polytechnics are certainly equivalent to some universities?

Mr. MacGregor: That matter has been debated in the House on many occasions. I believe that there are distinctive characteristics to universities and polytechnics. The most important task for the polytechnics is to continue to market their excellent advantages as well as they are currently doing. I see the polytechnics as one of the great success stories—among many—of recent years.

Pre-school Education

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of pre-school education places.

Mrs. Rumbold: Total local authority expenditure on education, as allowed for in the most recent grant settlement, will permit continued increases in the numbers and proportion of under-fives in school. However, it is for authorities themselves to determine the scale of their provision in that discretionary area.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that that answer is absolute nonsense? Does she recognise that the financial controls that will result from poll tax capping and from further poll tax restrictions next year on local authorities, such as Lancashire, will mean a further reduction in the provision of education services for the under-fives? Does she agree that this country has an appalling record in the provision of services for the under-fives? Does she accept that the best 22 providers of those services are at present Labour authorities?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I cannot accept any of those propositions. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in provision for the under-fives since 1980. Like many previous Administrations, this Administration has sensibly targeted resources towards the cities where there is a greater requirement for the provision of nursery education.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept, as many of her hon. Friends accept, and as the Prime Minister accepted when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, that the single most potent contribution that


the Government could make to raise the standards of education throughout an educational lifetime, and to maintain the standards of the family, would be to make greater provision of nursery education? During the present review, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind and plan accordingly for the future?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I know of his great interest in this subject and read his recent paper on nursery provision for the under-fives with great interest. He will be glad to know that this country has a good record in providing pre-school education, not simply by nursery education, but through the voluntary sector, with the provision of pre-school playgroups. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's views on the value of pre-school education, and those of my other hon. Friends.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given the impact of pre-school education on the future education of the individual child—of which we are all aware—is not it time for the Minister to reconsider the discretion of local authorities and to make pre-school education part of the basic provision, for all parents and children who desire that opportunity?

Mrs. Rumbold: At present we have the earliest starting age for full-time education of any of our European colleagues, other than the Netherlands. All our children start compulsory education at five. At present we do not see any reason for reducing the starting age for compulsory education to below five.

Mr. Holt: In seeking additional resources for pre-school provision, will my hon. Friend ask the Government to reconsider the school-leaving age with a view to bringing it far more into line with Europe, to enable us to be more flexible; to improve training throughout our country and to bring us into line with Europe on that issue also; to reduce the incidence of crime and truancy among youngsters and to give us a greater impetus after 1992?

Mrs. Rumbold: I share my hon. Friend's interest and concern about the school-leaving age and about the importance of encouraging young people to stay on in sensible training and education—I believe that that is what my hon. Friend wants—because that will lead us to a more disciplined and better trained society in the future. As I said, I believe that it is important that children should have pre-school education, but of a nature and type that accords with their parents' wishes.

Ms. Armstrong: If the Government are concerned to offer choice to parents, why have not they fulfilled their commitment to enable every parent to have the opportunity to choose nursery education if they so wish? If, as we have read, the Minister's committee on education for the under-fives is to recommend a major expansion of nursery education, will she today guarantee that the Government will fund such an expansion?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady must give up her obsession with wanting every parent to have to send every child into some kind of nursery education within the state system. We have always believed in the principle of choice for parents, and it is that choice which we have supported. About 86 per cent. of our three and four-year-olds are currently in some form of pre-school education of the parents' choice. As for funding, the hon. Lady should

know that we are at present looking at my right hon. Friend's announcement of last week that there is to be an education support grant of £2.5 million. That will go towards the improvement of planning pre-school education, and of caring by nursery nurses and by others involved in nursery education.

School Discipline

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are being made available by his Department to help implement recommendations directed to central Government contained in the Elton report on school discipline.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): In the current financial year, central Government grant is supporting expenditure of some £6.1 million on projects arising from the recommendations of Lord Elton and his colleagues. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Elton and his colleagues for a thoughtful and thorough report.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the Elton report does not go far enough—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Evans: —in that corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools? Does he further agree that Lord Elton should write another report that deals with the disgraceful behaviour of the Opposition, in particular of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who perhaps should receive corporal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This place is often likened to a school, but I do not think that the hon. Member's last remark is relevant.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Howarth: As always, my hon. Friend makes his points in highly effective style. He speaks with great force on an issue about which strong views and conflicting feelings are widely held. It was the Government's intention that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 should give parents a right of choice on whether their children should be liable to corporal punishment in schools. But the House decided, on a free vote on these Benches, not to accept that policy. The Government accepted the will of the House and, in consequence, it is not legal to administer corporal punishment to pupils in maintained schools or to publicly funded pupils in independent schools.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Campbell-Savours first.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of disciplining people in schools, may we have an assurance that Mr. Martin Turner of Croydon and all his colleagues who worked with him on the interesting document that was produced will be protected from any pressure that might be exerted by any education authority anywhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howarth: It is no part of the values of the Conservative party to impose any sort of ideological tyranny. Mr. Turner is an employee of Croydon local education authority and I am sure that Mr. Turner's rights, and his freedom of thought and expression in that authority, will be guaranteed, as they should be.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tragedy of the abolition of corporal punishment is that children are brought before the courts for small offences for which a stroke of the cane would have been more effective and immediate and would be of lasting value throughout their lives? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends in the Government to think again about that simple, important measure and to reintroduce modern, reasonable corporal punishment in schools for gross indiscipline?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of his background as a headmaster and the House listens to him with respect when he speaks on these issues. If we debated the matter further, I have no doubt that he would make an important contribution. It is perhaps worth stressing that the Elton report emphasised in its recommendations to schools the importance of establishing a clear set of rules backed up by a system of rewards and punishments which are clearly understood and accepted by teachers, parents and pupils. Where that applies, as it does in many schools, and where there is the right partnership between parents and teachers, to help children to understand and respect the difference between right and wrong, the orderly atmosphere which is a precondition of effective teaching and learning is created.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Fatchett.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The only point of order that the hon. Gentleman can have is his distress at not being called. What is the point of order?

Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that in your capacity as Speaker you have said several times from the Chair that if an hon. Member is named by another hon. Member it is normal practice to call the hon. Member who was named? Have you not said that in the past? If so, why—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Member being named. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] All right. I will call Mr. Nellist. [Interruption.] Order. It takes up the time of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Come along.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Nellist.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows better than that.

Mr. Nellist: If the Minister can tell his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) that extra resources can be diverted to maintaining good order in schools, why will he not put resources into areas such as those that I mentioned last week so as to stop councils breaking health and safety regulations by teaching kids in toilets? Why will he not put extra resources into Tower Hamlets to stop the council breaking the terms of the Education Act 1944 by sending hundreds of children home every day because there are no teachers to teach them? Why—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Member the chance to raise a question about corporal punishment in schools and nothing else.

Mr. Nellist: Why does the education team not take the beam out of its own eye before talking about motes in anyone else's?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman tells the House that he is keen on good discipline and the observation of regulations and warns against hypocrisy, but what puzzles me is that he also encourages the citizens of Coventry not to pay their community charge. If they do not pay their community charge, how can Coventry education authority have the resources that it needs to equip and staff its schools properly?
When I was asked to take responsibility for the Coventry task force, I wrote to all Coventry Members suggesting that we meet to consider how we could work in the interests of Coventry. I was disappointed that I had no response whatever from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend says that the matter of corporal punishment was decided by a free vote in this House, but is that the whole story? Did not a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which sought to impinge upon the sovereignty of this Parliament, direct us that corporal punishment could not be used in schools? And did not the Government, without any debate in the House, reaffirm the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend raises much wider constitutional issues, but the House has debated and freely took its decision.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. Fatchett.

Mr. Fatchett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you now understand and appreciate some of the problems of school discipline.
The Minister, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), referred to £6 million to ease the problems of discipline, but that is less than £230 per school, so there is little money available on that basis. Does the Minister recognise that we live in a society in which the Government have presided over record crime levels, shown ambivalence towards the problems of law and order in their activities, and encouraged individualism, and that that is bound to be reflected in discipline problems in schools? Instead of simply blaming the


teachers, is it not time that the Government gave them the necessary resources and recognised their responsibility for the lack of discipline in our schools?

Mr. Howarth: The Government make no apology for having encouraged individualism and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman's inability to recognise that those qualities assort perfectly well with self-discipline shows the narrowness of his conceptions. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is widespread disorderliness in our schools, as that is a gross disparagement of teachers and it is not the case. Beyond that, the House would be interested to know how much more money the Labour party would propose to spend.

Advanced-level Examinations

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the development of advanced-level examinations.

Mr. MacGregor: I have asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to recommend general principles for advanced-level syllabuses and examinations, with a view to having an improved system in place by 1994. I have also asked the council for advice on the scope for embodying a range of core skills in the programme of all advanced-level students, and on the scope for credit transfer between A and AS-levels and vocational qualifications. I shall consider in due course the implications of what the council proposes.

Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to increase the proportion of our pupils who stay on at school for A-levels and other qualifications beyond GCSE so that that proportion compares with our continental counterparts? Does he feel that he can reconcile that requirement with the equally important one of maintaining academic rigour?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the number staying on after 16 is increasing. The reforms that the Government have introduced over the years have a good deal to do with that. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to maintain the academic rigour, excellence and standards of A-levels. A number of other issues also need to be addressed in relation to the 16 to 19-year-old group.

Mr. Straw: While it is certainly important that the examination at 18 years should be rigorous and of a high standard, does the Secretary of State recognise the widespread concern of university vice-chancellors, head teachers and many others about the narrowness of A-levels and the fact that that restricts the proportion of youngsters who study science at 18? Will the assessment of the 18-plus school examinations by the School Examinations and Assessment Council include the recommendations of the Higginson report? If it so chose, could the SEAC recommend the Higginson report recommendations?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously there are debates about those matters, but the Government have made their position clear on the Higginson recommendations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have broader educational activities in sixth forms. That is the purpose of the AS courses which are increasingly being

taken up by universities as a method of entry in conjunction with A-levels, and that is an important way to proceed.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made with the establishment of grant-maintained schools.

Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to say that considerable progress is being made. As I said earlier, the first 18 grant-maintained schools started last September, and 44 grant-maintained schools will be operating this September. There will then be more grant-maintained schools in total than there are secondary schools in two thirds of English local education authorities.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome the excellent progress being made in this area, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the more schools there are that have experience of local management, the more there are that want to go the step further to grant-maintained status? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that nothing more clearly illustrates the Labour party's obsession with levelling down and its antipathy towards high standards than its vindictive opposition to this excellent idea?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is likely that, as more and more schools see the advantages of local management, they will also see the additional advantages which grant-maintained status gives them, taking them further in the direction of complete control over their budgets, with additional budgets at their disposal as a result of the expenditure from central funds and the further advantages that grant-maintained status brings. I entirely agree with the charges that my hon. Friend makes against the Opposition's policy. On assisted places, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, the Opposition deny choice and greater variety in the system. Their policy on assisted places denies opportunities to those parents who are prepared to make a contribution to their children's education which many Opposition Members have themselves had.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister must be easily pleased, as that number of 40-odd so-called grant-maintained schools, which we would describe as having opted out, is well below what the Government planned. Is he aware that in cities such as my own—Sheffield—there has not been one application for grant-maintained status, and I believe the same is true of Leeds, Wakefield and other great cities because people are completely opposed to the centralisation of education and believe that education should be the responsibility of local education authorities?

Mr. MacGregor: Given that grant-maintained status has only recently been introduced, there has been excellent progress so far. The hon. Gentleman should talk to head teachers and teachers in the grant-maintained schools, not to mention parents and governors. He will then see how popular they are and what a difference grant-maintained status makes to schools. I have described the policy as the jewel in the crown for parent power and I believe that its success will grow and grow.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Like many of my colleagues in Nottinghamshire, I have received correspondence from


boards of governors in our schools complaining bitterly at their treatment by the county with regard to local management. Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Government's advice to those boards of governors is to apply immediately for grant-maintained status?

Mr. MacGregor: Certainly I think that that is an option which more and more schools will wish to consider, and I hope that it will be drawn to their attention.

Pre-school Education

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives a good deal of correspondence on education for the under-fives. Most recently, more than 50 organisations and individuals have submitted evidence to my committee of inquiry on the quality of the educational experience of three and four-year-olds.

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, you have reached No. 13, so I think that you are wonderful.
Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of what Conservative Members have said today, Nottinghamshire county council provides a first-class service in the difficult conditions created by Government cuts? The Government, and particularly the Department of Education and Science, should be ashamed of Britain's pre-school education. We are struggling like hell to provide what is necessary and it is high time that the Minister cleared out all those responsible for that situation.

Mrs. Rumbold: The chairman of Nottinghamshire education committee, Councillor Fred Riddell, has assured me that he is proud of the education service that he provides. Apparently he provides it without much trouble.

Mr. Haselhurst: Notwithstanding the educational importance of getting under-fives into some organised system as quickly as possible, should not we also give some priority to ensuring that reception classes in primary schools are of manageable size? If we do not do that, the earlier work may be to no avail.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The quality of the education received by three and four-year-olds is of paramount importance. That is why my committee of inquiry is looking at the quality of the people who teach the reception classes and the number of youngsters entering those classes. If those factors are not right, early education comes to nought.

Teacher Vacancies

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher vacancies throughout England; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science hopes to make available later this month the data for teacher vacancies as at January 1990.

Ms. Quin: Are not the worst and most serious teacher shortages in maths, science, technology and modern languages, which are an essential part of the national curriculum? What hope can the Minister offer that when schools reopen in September after the summer holidays there will be a great improvement in the situation so that children will find qualified teachers ready to teach them in all the necessary subjects?

Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Lady knows, my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking urgently at this matter. There are bursaries to address teacher shortages in those subjects and to encourage postgraduate certificate of education students to go into teaching. In addition, we have mounted a good advertising campaign urging people to return to teaching, and especially to teach subjects for which there is a teacher shortage. The Government recognise that it is difficult to obtain enough teachers to teach certain subjects, but we are taking every opportunity to address the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Houston.

Miss Hoey: I am sure that the Leader of the House would like to join us all in congratulating the England football team on winning the fair play award in the World cup. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to congratulate and take the credit for our sportsmen and women when things are going well and after the event, but does he agree that perhaps a little more fair play should be shown to voluntary sports clubs which are being crippled by the unified business rate? Is he proud of the fact that sport is more highly taxed in Britain than in any other European country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: British sport is doing very well in a number of voluntary and professional respects. I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the England team on winning the fair play award. The House will be pleased that English clubs are to be readmitted to European football contests. Now that they have secured that place in Europe, we must be anxious to see that they stay there. If that is to be achieved, all hon. Members will join me in hoping that British fans will behave to the same standards as the England team in winning the award to which the hon. Lady referred.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave a morneni: ago.

Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to the Law Officers for consideration by the fraud squad the findings of the Lightman inquiry into the accounts of the National Union of Mineworkers? Is he


aware that that interminable inquiry, which did not receive evidence from key witnesses, found that 17 secret accounts were in operation and that £200,000 of Russian miners' money was used for personal reasons by Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Scargill? The report concluded that there had been a clear breach of the law with serious misapplications of funds and a breach of duty.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right for Ministers to comment directly on those gravely disquieting allegations. I am sure that the House hopes that all the appropriate authorities, and members of the National Union of Mineworkers, are studying the evidence most carefully.
It is also worth noting that the Government's trade union reforms have made unions and their leaders much more accountable to members. The role of the commissioner for the rights of trade union members should make such happenings much less likely in future. Meanwhile, all those who joined the Union of Democratic Mineworkers will be exceedingly glad that they did so.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Lord President give a categorical assurance that the Government's community care proposals are to be implemented as planned next April?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those proposals will be getting under way in accordance with the statute in due course.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand why the Lord President is not so definite as he was when he last answered a question from me a fortnight ago. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Health told the Select Committee last week, when asked if the plan would go ahead as scheduled, that the date of implementation was
not as definite as it was.
What did that mean?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat that the proposals and plans will be getting under way at the appointed date.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Lord President even attempts to answer the question, he may tell us whether he does not know the answer or whether he simply chooses not to give it. Is it not a fact that the plans are not going ahead as scheduled because (a) the Government will not devote enough central funds to financing them and (b) they are afraid that local authorities will have to make up the deficit by increasing already heavy poll tax burdens? Are not the Government simply saying that they do not care about the old and sick, and those who look after them, as long as they can avoid another exposure of the poll tax?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government will be maintaining the community charge subject to the reviews still taking place, the outcome of which will be announced in due course. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the implementation, and its pace, of any plans passed by the House must depend on the scale of resources available. That is a message that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seeks to proclaim on behalf of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should pay attention to what his right hon. and learned Friend says.

Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that local authorities have put a good deal of

work into preparations for the introduction of the community care proposals, which have been warmly welcomed in all parts of the House and the community? It will be a source of concern, confusion and disappointment, not only to local authorities but to potential beneficiaries, if the proposals are not implemented on the date that, for a long time, we have been given to understand that they would be.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the natural interest and concern in the matter. The obligations are on the statute book. However, the pace at which such measures are introduced must inevitably depend on the feasibility of the scheme and the resources available.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: While she is out of the country—

Hon. Members: Who?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winnick: —and the Leader of the House does not have much to lose anyway, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that the annual report of the community health councils shows only too well what is happening, with ward closures, cancelled operations, inadequate funding of the national health service and many people being discharged from hospital far too early? Does he agree that the Government's measures have made the national health service a poor relation of the private health sector? At the next election, who does he think will believe for one moment that the NHS has been safe in the hands of the Tory Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: All those who take account of the fact that last year the increase proposed for this year was no less than £2.9 billion, that the total increase in resources to the national health service has been 42 per cent. since the Government came to power in 1979, that there are 14,000 more doctors and dentists, 67,000 more nurses and midwives and a vast increase in the total services provided in the face of a rising population.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the rapid rise in company liquidations in the past 12 months? Does he agree that it is time for the Government to consider ways of containing inflation other than the rather blunt instrument of interest rates? Is he aware that if there are company liquidations in all major sectors of our manufacturing economy, as there are, that will lead to unemployment, which will cost the Government a lot of money?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend would do well to take account of the fact that, notwitstanding what he has said, there continues to be a strong net growth in the number of new business formations. At the end of last year, they were running at about 1,500 per week. That is further testimony to the continuing strength of the economy.

Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meale: Is the Leader of the House aware that as we head towards the summer recess, homelessness in Britain is becoming considerably worse? is he further aware that it is estimated that about 750,000 people in Britain are homeless, that 120,000 are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that 6,000 are living on the streets?
When the Prime Minister returns from Texas, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show her a video of the excellent programme, "Cathy, Where are You Now?", which was broadcast last night? Then perhaps both sides of the House can get together to solve the problem of homelessness before we have another winter with people living on the streets.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that we recently announced an increase of £2 million in the resources available for advice and help for the homeless, an additional £15 million in resources for shelters, and an additional £250 million in resources for London and the south-east over the next two years. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that 100,000 dwellings, under the control of Labour councils, are standing empty. Indeed, the worst authorities in that respect are all Labour controlled.

Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in the current community charge review there will be an absolute rejection of any idea of a return to the domestic rating system—something that was so often condemned, especially by the Opposition?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has the assurance that we have given many times—that the current review, the results of which will be announced in due course, is a review of the operation and not a review of the structure of the community charge. There is a great deal more certainty about the position under this Government than there is about the position under the Opposition's plans.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: Given that the leaders at the G7 summit have issued a communiqué suggesting that the 1990s should be known as the decade of democracy, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his definition of democracy? If he believes that people's aspirations are best expressed through the ballot box and through elected representatives, what message has he for the people of Scotland, who have made it abundantly clear that they do not want either the siting of a nuclear waste dump in, or the transportation of nuclear waste through, their country? Does he accept that Nirex and the Secretary of State can override those people's aspirations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Secretary of State's position was set out in the reasons that he gave for his modifications to the Highland regional council structure plan. His intention to modify it in that way has been advertised. Objections to his proposed modifications should be submitted in writing by 10 August.

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to commend the setting up by the Lord Chancellor of 94 new children's courts, with special judges who will have special training? Can we hope that procedures that formerly intimidated children, such as the dress of judges and the procedure of the courts, will be changed and that there will be more women judges in that important area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important step forward in the implementation of the Children Act 1989, which will promote and safeguard the welfare of children as all hon. Members would wish. My hon. Friend can take some comfort from the fact that judges with proper training in tha field will be well aware of the need that she identified for sympathetic treatment. She will also be glad to know that the Lord Chancellor is anxious to see more women on the bench. As there are a growing number of women with experience as advocates, the number of women on the bench is likely to grow and that would be a good thing.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Lord President find time to ask the Prime Minister when she comes back from Texas to talk to the junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, who is supposedly involved in consumer affairs but seems to be hell bent on killing my Consumer Guarantees Bill which gives consumers the right to have shoddy goods replaced, and tell him that if he is to continue in his job as consumer affairs Minister he should represent consumers and not manufacturers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand the matter, the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Bill.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rejection of socialism all over eastern Europe has one main feature—that people throughout eastern Europe recognise that free enterprise and the free market culture are the best guarantees of democracy and freedom? Does he agree that that should be the case throughout Europe and that the only people who do not recognise that fact are the members of the Labour party?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the people of eastern Europe are turning their backs on socialism, having seen its catastrophic failure. I wish that we could say the same of the Opposition.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amplification has been cut down yet again. Television audiences can hear very well, and hon. Members can hardly hear at all, but I suppose that it does not really matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does really matter. If and when the House resolves to make the experiment of television permanent, I understand that the Committee will consider the quality of the microphones in the Chamber.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify for the assistance of the whole House the exact rules on points of order during Question Time? While I appreciate that you were in a difficult position during questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, it has always been understood that points of order are taken at the end of questions, not in the middle.

Mr. Speaker: For the edification of the hon. Member and of the whole House, I refer him to Hansard of 12 February 1987, when I spelt out that matter in great detail. If a point of order which needs my immediate attention is raised during a debate, I have to take it. Similarly, if a point of order is raised in Question Time needing my immediate attention, I have to hear it. But I do not take points of order on other matters until after private notice questions and statements on Standing Order No. 20 applications have been dealt with.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to Question 8, from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Is it not a fact that the Lord President of the Council and the Prime Minister, when she is here, are responsible for questions that relate directly to her, and that the question of the hon. Member for Harrow, West was not related to the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council, but was simply party political propaganda on behalf of the Conservative party?

Mr. Speaker: I have to make a judgment on that. This House is here to discuss policies. If a question has some relation to a calculation of the Government's costs, for instance, then it is entirely in order to ask it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), Mr. Speaker. Not only was it difficult to hear his point of order but it was difficult to hear your response, too. Is it not appropriate, Sir, that the amplification in this place should be turned up before we hold the debate on whether television is to continue—so that Members can hear what is going on and the House can make the right decisions? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I may be granted some tolerance to answer this question. If there were not so much noise from the Back Benches it would be perfectly possible to hear the answers. When the House resolves to make permanent the televising of the House, no doubt the quality of the microphones in the Chamber will be looked at; but I have had few complaints about that quality so far.
The fact that Members cannot hear is directly related to the amount of noise on the Back Benches near the Member who is speaking.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that in recent weeks, when the Prime Minister has been away, the deputy Leader of the Opposition has usually put a question to the deputy Prime Minister. Is that conventional? I had always thought that the Leader of the Opposition should put the question to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does the Leader of the Opposition think—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: it is perfectly in order.

Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who uses a hearing aid in the House of Commons, may I ask that Members speak clearly so that the people of this country who are deaf can understand what they are saying? The House should understand that thousands of deaf people in this country rely on proper information being conveyed to them from the House so that they can enjoy their democratic rights as citizens.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether there was a point of order in that for me. The present microphones have a wide range, so if Members create noise behind or in front of a Member who is on his feet, their voices are picked up also.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject of audibility. On many previous occasions when something abusive or unparliamentary—or even merely someone's name—has been said in the House, you have said, "I did not hear it," and that was the end of the matter. But today you changed that; you did not hear the name of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned, but once there was an outcry from other Opposition Members, you accepted their word although you had not heard the name yourself. Was that in order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to be monitored by the hon. Gentleman so regularly. I frequently say that I have not heard comments made from a sedentary position—often by the hon. Gentleman himself. In this case, the hon. Member who raised the matter did so because he claimed that he had been named in the question asked by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), and I was on my feet to prevent that question from going any further.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was quite a bit of noise and the amplifiers may not be working properly, but I listened intently to the deputy Prime Minister answering the question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). May I take it that, when he was talking about money, he was referring to the plethora of frauds at Rover and Harrods and to all the other Government fiddles that have taken place? Did he say that? If so, I should like to join in—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in grave danger of straying well out of order. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr. Harry Cohen.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mr. Norman Tebbit.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that—quite inadvertently, I am sure—you referred to the occasion "when" this House would take the decision to extend the televising of the House. You did not put in the word "if. You should emphasise that no decision has been taken to make the televising of our proceedings a permanent feature. That is a decision for the House. I am sure that that is what you meant to say.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member will kindly read Hansard tomorrow morning, I think he will see that, in answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) I said, "if and when."

Mr. Ron Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously hon. Members should be heard. They should also be seen. Could the lighting be increased? It is evident during supplementary questions that some hon. Members are called before others. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Something should be done about it. Could we have a league table showing who gets called and who does not?

Mr. Speaker: It is a good point. I have a league table. I have a computer, and I do my utmost to ensure that every hon. Member gets a fair share of time in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is not deprived in that respect.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Nor is this hon. Member.

Mr. Corbyn: Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what opportunities there will be for the House to contrast the treatment of those who sought to defend mining communities during the miners strike, with international working-class support, with the treatment of a number of

former Cabinet Ministers who have lined their pockets by accepting directorships for which they get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time to debate matters of that kind. There are other matters to be debated today. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr.Cohen.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member last time, but I know the television cameras are still on. So I shall call him.

Mr. Davies: On the point of audibility, Sir, you said that you had received few complaints. I hope that it may assist you in attempting to assess the feeling of hon. Members, which I know you try to do fairly, if I add a complaint of my own. There seems to be a remarkable amount of ambiguity and a reluctance to concede explicitly that, as the television operators have demanded that our microphones should be turned down, we are suffering from the problems about which we complain. Can we have a clear explanation of whether televising the House has led to us suffering from this problem?

Mr. Speaker: This matter has often been raised before. The hon. Member should know that the microphones have not been turned either up or down. They are as they were before. The fact that hon. Members cannot hear what is said in the House is entirely due to the behaviour of other hon. Members in the House. Just so long as we have this kind of barracking from the Back Benches—and even, sometimes, from the Front Benches—we shall be unable to hear, even if we do replace the microphones.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to correct you, Sir, but the technical problem is nothing to do with the turning down of the mikes; it is the amplifiers that have been turned down, so that television audiences do not get a mumble in the background. That is the problem, and that is what we are suffering from.

Mr. Speaker: Let us see if we can now get on with the ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mortgage Assistance

Mr. Harry Cohen: I do not have to worry about the volume, because I have a very sound set of proposals.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill further to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee; to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property; to make the cost of shared-ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy; and for connected purposes.
The Bill could just as easily have been called the Mortgage Rescue Scheme Bill, or the Mortgage Choice Bill. It is a radical measure that is both innovative and important. It is important because it addresses the serious problem of home repossessions because of mortgage arrears which are getting worse because of the Government's high interest rate policy. We now have the highest interest rate in the industrialised world. Interest rates are the Goverrment's sole weapon to tackle the consumer credit boom that they unleashed to win the last general election. As United Kingdom production has not kept pace, we have a £20 billion per annum balance-of-payments crisis. By using interest rates, the Government are taking it out on recent home buyers.
Interest rates are reflected in mortgage rates, which have increased from 9–8 per cent. to 15.4 per cent. in just over a year. The average new mortgage holder in the United Kingdom is paying £144 a month more, and £250 a month more in London. The chief executive of the charitably owned estate agency, Andrews, said, "It is absurd to expect young people with expanding familites to take on 25-year home loans, budget for repayments out of tightly controlled incomes and then have their monthly mortgage commitment soar within six months." That is what has happened, and many hundreds of thousands of households have been trapped because high mortgage rates have become an integral part of the Government's economic strategy.
It has led to an arrears time bomb. Recently, I asked a couple of parliamentary questions about the numbers of people who were six to 12 months in arrears. the Treasury Minister replied that, on 31 December last year, the figure was some 58,000 households. It is significant that he chose December: a more recent date would have revealed a much higher figure, as it has rocketed since then.
When I asked the Minister about those between one and six months in arrears, he refused to answer, saying that he had nothing more to add. The Council of Mortgage Lenders certainly had something to add, saying that more than 500,000 people are in that category and the numbers are soaring. In its July newsletter, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that in 1989, there were some 47,093 repossession orders in England alone, and that there had been a marked increase in the south-east.
The Association of London Authorities reported that, in 1989, well over 600 households had been accepted as homeless in London as a result of repossession. Probably many more people have been rehoused by local authorities, but other reasons have been given. All the signs are that there will be a substantial increase in those numbers this year.
My Bill is timely and necessary. It would help a large number of hard-pressed mortgage payers who are currently suffering because of high mortgage rates and they are fearful of repossession. Let me outline the main proposals. First, a mortgage payer would be able to convert part-ownership, scaling down his ownership in the property, so that the repayments become manageable. Effective, it would buy people time over a five-year period.
Secondly, a mortgage payer could convert to shared ownership, so that a local authority or housing association could take over the mortgage with rights in the property. That local authority or housing association would then receive the revised mortgage payments, and the rent and its capital would be returned when the property was sold. The purpose of such a scheme would be for repayments to become manageable for the mortgage payer. My Bill contains a mechanism to prevent soaring house prices from causing such damage. If there were excessive lending by the building societies, the part-ownership period would be longer and the local authority could charge a transfer fee on the building society to take over that mortgage.
The third option would be for the mortgage payer to convert from ownership to rental with the local authority. That is Labour party policy, and it would avoid people being thrown out into the streets. That would enable a mortgage payer to get back on his feet; there would be nothing to stop him repurchasing the property, as the Bill does not interfere with right-to-buy provisions. If a mortgage payer, through no fault of his own, cannot maintain the repayments, even under a shared ownership scheme, he could enter a rental arrangement with the local authority so that he would not be evicted.
The fourth major provision in the Bill would place a duty on the lending institutions to seek contract with mortgage payers to sort out alternative arrangements prior to any court action for repossession. It is a scandal that a minute or two minutes in court without the mortgage payer knowing what is happening can cause someone to lose his home. That is happening at the moment, and my Bill would stop it.
The fifth major provision of the Bill is that the Secretary of State for the Environment will have to report regularly to the House on the special funds that he will provide to local authorities, such as the new borrowing arrangements to enable them to undertake shared ownership schemes and the special grants to housing associations.
The housing finance regime would have to be altered. Of course a cost would be involved, but it would be a capital cost, because it would increase local authorities' borrowing allocation. In the meantime, revenue—repayments and part rents—would be coming in. It would benefit local authorities' income generation and it would mean less, not more, on poll tax bills. It must be cheaper than the cost of homelessness and the wasteful cost of bed and breakfast.
My Bill would apply only to mortgage payers in genuine difficulties and not to those who are in wilful arrears. That would be easy to operate, because the criteria


for whether they were in wilful arrears would be the same as the definition of intentionally homeless in the homeless legislation.
The question must be asked: if I can provide some protection and choice for hard-pressed mortgage payers, why cannot the Government? There was nothing in the Budget or in the Finance Bill, which we shall consider next week, and they still have nothing to offer. They simply do not have the political will, because they do not care about struggling home buyers.
The Prime Minister recently spoke of a scheme to convert rents to mortgages, about which she gave no details, but that does nothing to stem the current flood of mortgage repossessions. I remind the Government that there is no choice if there is coercion, and high rents are coercion. Once ordinary people are on the Government's scheme, they lose all their rights of security because of the high mortgage rates that prevail.
My challenge to the Government is to accept my Bill and their scheme. Otherwise, they are only pretending to deal with this serious problem; they are only teasing about owner-occupation when they are prepared to snatch away home ownership.
The principal solution is low interest rates—that is the main part of Labour's policy—but there is a strong case for providing the protection and choice that I propose for mortgage payers. They certainly should not be made to bear the brunt of the national economic mismanagement. My Bill is a new way to defend and to extend home ownership, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Lady seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mrs. Gorman: I seek to oppose the Bill, not because I lack sympathy for the very small number of people who find themselves in difficulties with their mortgages, but because the solution of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr Cohen), which includes yet more regulations, this time to be imposed on the mortgage lending business, is likely to have an opposite effect to that which he intends because building societies will be even less likely to want to help people whose incomes are fairly low and who may be unable to maintain their payments at the original level.
Building societies have a liberal attitude and, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave, many mortgage companies enter into dialogue with people who find themselves in difficulty. I urge him, using his capacity as a Member of Parliament, to approach building societies directly with such cases. I have done so on behalf of some of my constituents, with great success.
The main fault of the Bill is that it does not tackle the underlying problem in housing—that over the years the Labour party has constantly sought to regulate, to bully and to control the private-sector landlord, so that the only option open to people on low incomes is to buy or to seek housing from their local council.
When I was young—[Interruption.]—which was not all that long ago—working-class people like us had a choice in housing, a choice in rented housing in the private sector. The Labour party has destroyed that choice by its constant bullying of the private landlord. The Conservative party is trying to bring back the private landlord. If the hon.

Gentleman is seriously concerned about the plight of these people, he should urge his own Front Bench to lay off attacking measures that will restore confidence to the private landlord. Every time our party suggests some liberalisation, the Labour party offers threats to any landlord who tries to rent out his property.
There is a great deal of empty property available, as all hon. Members are aware. Most of that does not come up for rent, because the owners are frightened that, if we ever suffered under Labour legislation again, their properties would be sequestrated because the Labour party does not believe in the private rented sector. In raising this proposal to help tenants, the hon. Gentleman is neglecting the role that his party has played in creating this problem. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, That the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion say aye. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] To the contrary, no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]
As the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has spoken against the Bill, she must say "no".

Mrs. Gorman: No.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Eric Martlew and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee: to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property; to make the cost of shared-ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with points of order. Is this connected with the ten-minute Bill?

Mr. Cryer: Yes. I noticed that you cautioned the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who opposed the


Bill. You said that it was customary—as it is—for any hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill to follow that opposition by pressing the matter to a Division.
Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you did not call a Division on the ten-minute Bill because the sole voice against this excellent Bill was that of the hon. Member for Billericay, who was mistaken, as she usually is? It is a poor reflection on the Conservative Benches that they cannot find one supporter for their misguided representative.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. If an hon. Member opposes a Bill, he or she must shout "No" on the first occasion. When I put the question again, if my saying, "The ayes have it" is not challenged, a Division is not called. None the less, if an hon. Member speaks against a Bill, but does not carry it to a Division, he or she takes up the time of the House. There may therefore be a case for considering the procedure in the light of the time taken from subsequent debates.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am still on my feet. This is an estimates day, which is a prized opportunity for Back-Bench Members—especially, in this case, Welsh Members and those from the south-west—to debate flooding. Points of order take up time, just as much as opposition to ten-minute Bills.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order if they are related to this matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether one way of trying to overcome this problem—if you had the authority; obviously you would tell the House—might be that, if information was given to your office that an hon. Member wanted to oppose a ten-minute Bill, which is the normal procedure, that hon. Member could state whether he or she intended to seek a vote. It is a mockery if an hon. Member has 10 minutes in which to propose a potential Bill, but then another hon. Member, from another party, argues against it but refuses to call for a vote. Surely that is a waste of time.
I believe that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) refused to call for a vote because she knew full well that the Opposition would have won without hesitation. The hon. Lady therefore wasted the time of the House by putting forward a feeble case and then refusing to call for a vote. Surely that is a form of political cowardice.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time.
I must, of course, operate the rules as they are at the moment. At the moment, I am required to give an hon. Member who wishes to oppose a Bill the opportunity to do so. What I was saying a moment ago was that, given the pressure of time on subsequent debates, perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure should now look at this matter again.

Mr. Tony Favell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you share my boredom at bogus points of order being raised during television time. Would it not be a good idea if you were given a switch and could turn off the television cameras whenever an Opposition Member made a bogus point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat of an expert in bogus points of order. The problem is that there seems to be a tendency to raise points of order during television time—I put it no higher than that, and I would not wish to make any accusations in the Chamber. We all know the television cameras transmit live until 3.50 pm and I have found from experience that, if there is no statement or private notice question, points of order tend to be raised and seem to cut off, almost automatically, at 3.50 pm. I sometimes wonder what the reason for that might be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Corbyn: I rose before my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: I waited until we were alone to raise this point of order. [ Laughter.] I could be wrong on this—I usually am—but has it not been the case until fairly recently that, when an hon. Member rises to oppose a ten-minute rule application, there is a vote? That was the convention. However, that has changed at some stage and an hon. Member is now allowed simply to voice opposition. I wonder whether you can confirm that, Mr. Speaker, because your point about this matter being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure is most relevant.

Mr. Speaker: The rule has always been that an hon. Member may speak against a Bill, provided that the shout of "No" is heard. That is the objection. However, I repeat that that is not a good practice and that we should consider whether to allow what are almost free kicks to continue in view of the time that we need in this place to debate other important matters.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, at 4.2 pm. I welcome your suggestion that the Select Committee on Procedure should consider ten-minute Bills because, as you know, I take them seriously. A Bill is often introduced at this stage, carried without Division or, as in this case, carried with opposition but no Division, yet it can be killed off on a Friday afternoon by one of the Government Whips muttering, "Object."
When the Select Committee on Procedure considers this matter, perhaps it should also consider whether there might be some way by which, if an hon. Member goes to the effort of introducing a ten-minute Bill—a serious piece of legislation and a serious proposal—and it is carried at that stage, it cannot be objected to by the simple expediency of the Whips. We should ensure that it is properly dealt with and brought back to the House as a serious piece of legislation. It should not be dismissed as a mere 10-minute speech by one hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: The danger is that the public could be misled by the procedure of the ten-minute rule. The Bill that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has asked leave to bring in today has not been passed. The hon. Gentleman has simply asked leave to introduce his Bill.


When the Select Committee on Procedure looks again at this matter, perhaps it might also reconsider the procedure whereby it is possible to introduce a ten-minute Bill after the last day on which there is an opportunity for its Second Reading on a Friday. In many ways, a ten-minute Bill is an empty gesture at this time of year.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have one next week.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to rebuke me for opposing a ten-minute rule Bill—which I did, but I also called "No"—and it was your choice to decide whether to call a Division. It ill behoves you, Mr. Speaker—[Interuption.]—to accept points of order which are critical from Opposition Members, who are not backward in opposing ten-minute rule Bills. There are few opportunities in the House for Back Benchers who feel strongly on subjects to make their views known. This has been one such occasion. I may be in a minority now but, to paraphrase Disraeli, there will come a time when the House will follow me on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must not get upset. I was certainly not rebuking her. She was perfectly in order in doing what she did; she was following the procedure. I was questioning that procedure, not what the hon. Lady did.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with an important matter. The fact of causing a Division to take place is often a deterrent to hon. Members getting to their feet and speaking on an issue. The knowledge that one is about to cause a vote to take place by one's Opposition acts as a deterrent to speaking. Is a precedent now being created by which hon. Members will be able to air their views and then not have to do anything about it? If so, we shall be opening a whole can of worms, which could result in hon. Members airing their views, secure in the knowledge that they need not take the matter further.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is what we have been talking about.

Mr. Flannery: I hope that my hon. Friend will be quiet and heed what I am saying. I am making a sound point. Mr. Speaker and I fully appreciate the point I am making.

Mr. Winnick: Hear, hear—said by a former headmaster.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is an old hand, and he must be aware that the point that he raises is precisely the issue that we have been discussing for the last 10 minutes or so. We have been agreeing that perhaps the procedure should be looked at, and I hope that it will be.

ESTIMATES DAY

[3RD ALLOT FED DAY]

ESTIMATES 1990–91

CLASS III, VOTE 3

[Relevant document: Third report from the Welsh Affairs Committee of Sesssion 1989–90 on the breach of the Sea Defences of 26th-27th February along the North Wales coast (House of Commons paper No. 426).]

Sea Defences and Flood Damage

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceedng £87,366,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation for sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the day when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has published its report relating to the breach of sea defences along the north Wales coast on 26 and 27 February this year.
The key point I wish to emphasise in relation to the Estimates is that secure sea defences are crucial. But if freak weather conditions occur and some defences are put at risk, it is vital to recognise that money is not well spent in financing the operations of the Neptune warning system in its present form if, as happened at Towyn, two conditions apply.
The first is that the maritime district authorities do not take seriously—or they even ignore completely—the Neptune warning that they receive from the National Rivers Authority via the police relating to high tide and tidal surge. That information is collected by the Meteorological Office in the form of a storm tide warning service at a cost to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, according to the estimates, of £339,000.
The second is that information on offshore wave heights supplied by the Meteorological Office to the National rivers Authority is not passed to the maritime district authorities, so the information that those authorities receive is incomplete. In other words, the maritime authorities receive only tide and predicted tidal surge levels and do not receive offshore wave levels, information that they require to enable them to determine what they must do under extreme weather conditions.
The extensive flooding along the north Wales coast which followed the severe weather conditions of 26 and 27 February resulted from the simultaneous incidence of three factors: first, a predicted high spring tide of between 4.87 m and 5.07 m above ordnance datum; secondly, a deep depression approaching from the west causing a tidal surge which increased the depth of water approaching the coastline by up to 1.42 m above the predicted level; thirdly, storm to violent storm force winds recorded as 10 to 11 on the Beaufort scale from the north and north-west causing waves up to 6 m high.
As the scale of the damage was greatest in the Colwyn borough council area, where about 5,000 people were evacuated from their homes, I shall direct my remarks largely to that area. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who is a senior Conservative member of the Select Committee that I chair.
On 14 May this year, the Select Committee visited the areas affected by the flooding along the north Wales coast and met local people in their homes and caravans. On 15 May, the Committee met at the community centre in Towyn to take oral evidence from the borough councils of Colwyn, Delyn and Rhuddlan. We also took evidence at the same venue from members of the British Railways Board, because the sea wall that was breached at Towyn at about midday on 26 February was owned by British Rail. We also received 26 written memoranda. We are grateful to the Ordnance Survey for supplying us with aerial photographs of the coastal belt, and to the Towyn citizens advice bureau for providing us with individual case studies of people who experienced difficulties with insurance companies in making their claims.
The most disturbing aspect of the inquiry must be the ignorance displayed by the most senior local government officers of Colwyn borough council about the Operation Neptune warning which the council received from the police at 08.53 hours on the morning of 26 February. Indeed, on six separate occasions during the oral evidence session in the Towyn community centre, the director of housing and technical services, without any contradiction from his chief executive, the borough treasurer or the assistance chief executive for legal and administrative affairs, emphasised and re-emphasised that the council was not informed of the Neptune warning.
In paragraph 53 of the evidence, the director of housing and technical services said:
I do have to say that the Neptune warning system was not received by us on that morning.
In paragraph 54, he said:
We were not warned of the surge effect on the tide.
In paragraph 55, he said:
We get the message relayed to us by the local police and we did not get it on that particular day.
In paragraph 57, he said:
It did not happen on that morning, no.
In paragraph 62, he said:
I have to report we did not receive our Neptune warning on that morning. It was only by the observation of officers that we saw conditions were of that nature and put everybody on warning.
In paragraph 67, he said:
There is no record of having received a Neptune warning by our source, which is the North Wales police.
The council subsequently informed us in writing that Colwyn borough council received a Neptune warning on the morning of 26 February at 08.53 hours. It must be deeply disturbing to the people of Towyn and, indeed, to all who reside in maritime areas threatened by flooding from the sea, that senior officers of a Welsh local authority did not know six weeks after the dramatic events of 26 February that their local authority had received an Operation Neptune warning. I have little doubt that, had the Select Committee not pursued that line of questioning, Colwyn borough council might still have been under the mistaken impression that no warning was received.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In fairness to those whom he has criticised, did the hon. Gentleman and his Committee receive any evidence that suggested a lack of reliability on the part of the Neptune system?

Mr. Wardell: No, we did not. As I said earlier, the Meteorological Office conveys to the National Rivers Authority two separate pieces of information. First, it conveys information about the height of the tide and the tidal surge. Secondly, it separately conveys to the NRA information about offshore wave height. One of our fundamental recommendations is that both those pieces of information should be conveyed to the maritime authorities—at the moment, only one piece of information is conveyed. None the less, the Operation Neptune warning was delivered at 08.53 to Colwyn borough council, but its senior officers knew nothing about it. That deplorable situation must not be permitted to recur.
We recommend that the NRA should be made responsible for conveying information on tidal surges and wave heights to the maritime district authorities. Engineers from those authorities and other bodies responsible for major sea defences should be on standby to receive that information. I am sure that that answers the Minister's question. When the hon. Gentleman responds to our recommendations, I hope that he can say that those steps will be taken to meet the problem.

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I clarify that I was seeking to elicit whether there is some doubt about the accuracy and reliability of Neptune warnings?

Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, because the evidence that we subsequently received from the Meteorological Office showed that the prediction made in the Neptune warning on the morning of 26 February was surprisingly accurate. I am sure that that fundamentally important point will help the Minister.
It is also disconcerting that the information on tide surges and offshore wave heights was available at 02.30 to the Meteorological Office. The Meteorological Office originally told us that it conveyed that information to the NRA at 02.30, but subsequently it changed its evidence and said that that information was passed on at 03.40—the office of the NRA was not open until 06.00 Because of those delays, as well as delay on the part of the north Wales police, the Operation Neptune warning did not arrive at Colwyn borough council until 08.53—six hours and 23 minutes after the computer prediction was available at the Meteorological Office.
Another vital recommendation of the Committee is that an evacuation standby warning should be given by local authorities in vulnerable areas when a Neptune warning of extremely severe conditions is given. To achieve that, it is obvious that the delays that occurred in the transmission of information to Colwyn borough council must be eliminated.
I have chosen to concentrate on the Operation Neptune warning system, but there are two other crucial recommendations. The first is that the Welsh Office should re-issue the advice to local authorities in circular 15/82 entitled "Development in Flood Risk Areas—Liaison between Planning Authorities and Water Authorities". Paragraph 7 of that circular needs particular emphasis:
Land which is protected from inundation by the sea would be extremely vulnerable in the event of any


embankment or sea wall being breached. For example, tidal surges might involve the loss of life as well as the destruction of property. Planning authorities are therefore asked to bear this point particularly in mind when considering development for land protected in this way.
The Welsh Office will bear a heavy responsibility if it approves structure plans without satisfying itself that maritime local authorities' local plans satisfy the conditions of circular 15/82. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look again at that circular, re-issue it and bear in mind the responsibility that his Department bears when it approves county structure plans.
The second crucial recommendation concerns insurance. It is often the case that people on low incomes naturally neglect to update their insurance policies to ensure that they are completely covered for the impact of flooding on the contents or structure of their property. In that regard, the Select Committee recommends, in its report published today, that local authorities should warn residents in areas at risk from flooding of the need to be fully insured by writing to every resident. That policy should be backed up by regular newspaper advertisements. We also recommend that local searches show solicitors which areas are liable to flooding.
The Select Committee's inquiry into the events of 26 and 27 February left hon. Members in no doubt that, if the British Rail sea wall at Towyn had been breached around midnight on 26 February instead of around midday, lives would have been lost because of the vulnerability of the large numbers of elderly people living in that area. The Select Committee is conscious of the fact that, if present climatic trends continue, the likely problems and danger of flooding of the coast will become greater in future. That is the view of Hydraulic Research Ltd. contained in its memorandum to the Committee.
If the Select Committee's recommendations are accepted by the Government, I am sure that far greater protection will be available against inundation by the sea through the construction of hard and soft defences. We recommend that the current bias in the grant system towards hard defences should be remedied.
The Select Committee has excelled itself in its probing short inquiry. I must thank Professor O'Connor from Liverpool university for his expert advice, and it is my pleasure to acknowledge the work of the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Harrison, and his assistant, Mr. McShane, and Emma, who did the typing at the last minute under great stress. I also wish to pay tribute to the energetic and enthusiastic way in which fellow members of the Committee delved and probed into this difficult subject matter.
I hope that the result of our deliberations will comfort people who live in north Wales and in other coastal areas as they face the next winter. I pay a special tribute to the senior Conservative Member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Clwyd North-West, who, throughout a most difficult time, clearly demonstrated his deep care for his constituents. The hon. Gentleman clearly deserves his place in the House—unless, of course, a Labour candidate eases him gently out at the next election. I am grateful to him for his support on the Committee and for the work that he and all members of the Committee have carried out.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The tribute by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was quite the nicest kiss of death ever bestowed on me. Apart from the Select Committee's specific recommendations, to which I shall refer later, the debate will focus much needed light on the still woeful plight of nearly 1,000 of my constituents who, six months after the February floods, are unable to return to their badly damaged homes and are living in caravans in their small front gardens or on the road outside. It is no joke looking after small children, elderly infirm relatives or, in some cases, mentally handicapped relatives in a caravan for months on end. lt may even be worse for those who are lodged in old people's homes, separated from friends, neighbours and memories.
The debate will serve to remind the nation and the media how tardy, patchy and short-lived has been their generosity to these unhappy people. They still need help and desperately need to feel that the rest of the country—not just the people of Wales, who have responded magnificently—are aware of and sympathetic to their plight. Here I record my special gratitude to the National Federation of Pensioners Associations, which at its conference passed a resolution expressing support for the people of Towyn and Kinmel bay.
The scope of the report is necessarily limited. We did not have time to cover anything other than sea defences and early-warning issues. We were not able to look into the severe problems faced by farmers, many of whom have lost much stock and whose land is taking a long time to recover from the effects of prolonged soaking by sea water.
I pay special tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for Wales, who responded swiftly with lavish supplies of gypsum. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who immediately visited the affected areas. Above all, I pay what may seem a slightly incestuous tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Member for Gower. It is a fairly open secret that he commands the confidence of every member who served on the Committee and those who previously served on it. He and all members of the Committee took endless trouble over the report. I thank them for that, and for meeting and listening to people while they were in north Wales seeing the problems for themselves. I know how affected they were by the continuing distress that surrounded them.
I hope that the report and the debate will restore confidence to my constituents and to all who may face a similar threat. The debate has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for west-facing coasts. The lessons of the tragedy have been drawn and everything possible will be done to ensure that residents are safe from flooding next winter and for the foreseeable future. If unforeseeable conditions should occur, residents will be given ample warning and there will be provision for escape from death or injury, in their own homes by way of access to an upper floor or, at the very least, roof space, in bungalows—and proper escape and access routes for rescue vehicles will be made available and kept clear.
I am particularly pleased with the recommendation that expenditure by local authorities on the maintenance of sea defences including the vital and continuing replenishment of sloping beaches—should attract Government


grant in exactly the same way as, at present, only capital works such as concrete sea walls do. That lesson holds good for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The top priority must be the repair and strengthening of the sea wall. Those who live in the threatened areas must have a categorical assurance that, by next October, the wall and the beach will be able to absorb a storm as violent as that of last February. Such a storm may be a 1:200 year risk. However, as Dr. Robert Kay of the university of East Anglia said in a seminar staged by Clwyd county council, one can say that the odds against it are 1:200, but that is the same as saying that the odds are 200:1 against it happening again next year—horses have won the Grand National on odds only a little shorter than that.
Despite the urgent need to rebuild and strengthen the sea wall, I do not understand why British Rail needs to close off the entire beach along the Towyn area for the whole period of the work. I accept that access to the beach will have to be severely restricted, but it must be possible for British Rail to schedule the work so that some parts can remain open to the public at certain times. Otherwise, it will inflict a crippling blow on the area's hard-hit and struggling tourist industry.
In the course of giving evidence, I asked British Rail about access to the beach. In answer to question 202, Mr. Elliott replied:
We would need to liaise with the local authority in providing some form of access.
I asked:
It will be your responsibility?
Mr. Rayner replied:
Let me say, Sir, if it is not it will be.
If British Rail does not ensure that there is, at least at times, access to the beach for the holiday makers of Towyn, it will cause severe injury to an industry on which a great deal of British Rail's prosperity depends. I ask Mr. Robert Reid to think again about that.
The report has rightly exposed shortcomings, especially in relation to warnings. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gower, was severe in his criticism of officials at Colwyn council. I do not want to say too much about Colwyn's failure to react to the Neptune warning. It is unfortunate that the council changed its story, and clearly there was a muddle, but I have not had time to hold the sort of informal discussion that I would normally have had with the Chairman before this debate. It has been an incredible rush, and it is amazing that the report has come out on time.
In fairness to Colwyn, I would not have been quite so specific as the hon. Member for Gower in picking out Mr. Gough for so much blame. It is arguable that the six-hour delay of the National Rivers Authority was as much a contributory factor as Colwyn's slip-up. That begs the question whether, even if the early warning had been received and acted upon throughout, it would have done that much to avert the tragedy, which was caused not by the over-topping but by the collapse of the wall. We may argue about whether that collapse could have been foreseen, but in my heart I do not believe that it could.
It occured at a point a long way away from where there had been a previous crack, but perhaps I am being unduly complacent. I hope that the media will not fasten exclusively or excessively on that aspect, or indulge in a

hunt for scapegoats. Above all, the people of the area need to recover their self-confidence and to rebuild their shattered lives. That means that we must all work together.
I am aware that there have been cowboy builders, but some of the builders whom I have met have been working all the hours that God sends, at nominal levels of profit, out of a sense of commitment to the community in which they live. I cannot find sufficiently high words of praise for the activities of some of the housing associations in the area, which have provided a rescue and advice service for people whose homes were badly affected.
I know that there have been complaints about some of the insurance companies and, perhaps more pertinently, the activities of certain loss adjusters who have been less than prompt in meeting claims. I pay tribute to the Association of British Insurers, which responded instantly to the Select Committee's suggestion that it should provide a once-a-week presence at the community centre in Towyn, where the voluntary and statutory relief agencies provide a devoted service all day every day and where the Select Committee held its hearings.
I know that there are some hard and bitter feelings about the distribution of the pitifully small appeal fund among those who have lost so much. I only wish that it were possible to compensate, in some measure, everyone who has suffered, but a fund as small as that must be used for the relief of those who have lost most and who have the least chance of recovery from statutory agencies or insurance companies. Those who seek to stir up grievances render poor service to the community in which they live.
Knowing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales as well as I do, I know that he will respond positively and generously, as far as he can, to the recommendations of the Select Committee. He has already shown his concern by his two lengthy visits to the affected areas—one of which took place even before he became Secretary of State—and by his manifest sympathy for all those he met. I am sure that he will give the most careful consideration to our recommendations. In particular, I hope that he will urge the Treasury to think again about the whole system of grant for repair and maintenance work. I hope that, in consultation with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, he will reconsider both the planning guidelines and the building regulations in areas liable to flooding by sea or from land.
I thank my fellow members of the Select Committee, especially the Chairman, for the immense trouble that they have taken over this matter, which is of such desperate importance to my constituency.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who made a typically gracious speech. He had his priorities right, and it was shrewd of him to put the pressure on British Rail.
The report of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and his Select Committee has done a public service. It is probably the most important report published by the Select Committee. It is about life and about death. Its findings relate not only to all of Wales, but to all of Britain. It is both a wise and a practical report. The Welsh Office should now go to action stations and respond speedily to it. It is a blueprint for a responsible response from the Government.
I cannot forget that we are discussing a disaster. We all want to ensure that no other part of Wales suffers the same. The Committee was right to concentrate on the warnings about high sea levels, the condition of the sea defences, the responsibility for the sea defences and the planning policy for areas liable to flooding. It is an agenda for the Government, and I urge them to respond as speedily and as seriously as possible.
As regards aims, I hope that we can build on a consensual response to the disaster, and agree upon a policy that can limit risks and protect our people.
Paragraph 15 of the report contains the following chilling sentence:
Once the breach occurred then the speed of incursion into the Towyn area was such that very little warning could be given in advance to residents.
Another chilling sentence, in paragraph 8, states:
However, residents were at risk and children, especially, suffered psychological trauma. People struggled to escape from their bungalows by the window as the water levels rose.
That, perhaps unintentionally, hints at a drama by Hitchcock.
Having been to the scene of the disaster, I found the report very accurate. My quotations from it sum up the fear and trauma experienced by those who suffered.
I pay tribute to the police, firemen, council workmen, ambulance men and women and volunteers who did a huge amount of work on the day of the disaster to help and comfort people who were frightened.
To put our debate into context, it is good that the Select Committee made such a practical response, based upon its visit to the scene of the disaster. It was shrewd of the Secretary of State for Wales to visit the area as soon as he could, as it was shrewd of the previous Secretary of State to visit the scene of the disaster. Thanks have been given to the Minister of State for going as soon as any Minister might have done.
I acknowledge the importance of the fact that the Government have improved the Bellwin rules threshold and their cash contribution to the disaster fund. I do not leave out of my tribute the mayors, voluntary organisations in Clwyd and show business stars who have made great efforts to help the people stricken by the disaster.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman mentioned show business people. Perhaps he will support my plea to the national media that they should have given nationwide coverage to the appeals instead of broadcasting them in Wales only. The people of Wales have given generously, but the appeals have never been nationally networked.

Mr. Jones: I take my cue from the hon. Gentleman. It was sad that the appeal was not broadcast outside Wales, as I am sure that hearts would have been touched and that the response would have been generous. Indeed, one of the reasons for this debate is to prompt the conscience of the nation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went to the scene without a political mission, aiming to help in the way that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, has instanced. The hon. Gentleman's work as a Member of Parliament has been exemplary throughout the disaster. He has approached a difficult problem with compassion and consientiousness, he has been consistent and his constituents would wish to thank him.
When my right hon. Friend, Mrs. Kinnock and I visited the scene of the flooding, we were greatly moved. My right hon. Friend instantly resolved to meet the Secretary of

State for Wales at the Welsh Office, as he was so appalled at the remaining evidence of the disaster and its cruel impact on local people. He admired their courage and humour.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, like the Secretary of State, received a deputation of people affected by the disaster, when they came to lobby Parliament. Hon. Members who visited the north Wales coast saw the strain and worry, which was all too evident, on the faces of the people whom we met—but I also acknowledge their endurance and dignity.
I have made several visits to the scene of the disaster. I, too, recollect the report by the foster parents of two handicapped children, which was given to me, with my right hon. Friend and Mrs. Kinnock, in a caravan adjacent to a home ruined by the flooding. It had been lovingly enlarged and furnished to care for handicapped children, which is what that humane man and his wife have dedicated their lives to.
Other people told us about the speed of the inundation and of their terror at seeing the sea advance to their homes in broad daylight. Incredibly, the sea swept far inland, blighting local farmers' pasture. The farming community now has a major problem.
I visited a school where youngsters had to stand on their desks on the day of the disaster, and a small council estate far inland that had been flooded to a height of more than 4 ft. It had only recently been built, but was inundated by the cruel sea and partially ruined.
On a later visit, I saw a superb seafront leisure centre, part of which had been smashed to pieces. The ballroom was unrecognisable as the room that I had visited in November last year.
The impact of global warming is difficult to predict, as nobody will deny, but some of the beauty spots along the Welsh coast may fall victim to rising sea levels during the next few decades. Storms and thunderstorms could become more frequent and the hazard of flooding will increase in the valleys of the Rivers Dyfi, Dee, Clwyd, Towy and Wye. What about Borth and Newborough in Anglesey? What assessments have the Ministers made?
In a written answer on 24 April, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central
(Mr. Grist), told my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells):
All coastal regions that lie below the highest sea level in their vicinity are at some risk of being inundated by sea water in the event of breaches of sea defences. The most significant such areas in Wales are parts of the north Wales coast, the Caldicot and Wentlooge levels and lands bordering the major estuaries, for example, Afon Glaslyn, Afon Mawddach, Afon Dyfi and Lougher inlet."—[Official Report, 24 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 142.]
One cannot be franker than that, and it was a fair response to a serious question.

Sir Wyn Roberts: It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I assured him that the National Rivers Authority has already embarked upon a full survey of coastal defences in Wales.

Mr. Jones: I look foward to an expanded reply on that matter from the Minister of State—he knows that it is his duty.
We know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is increasing its expenditure over the next three years. The east coast must be a priority. I expect to hear


the Minister of State tell us that his Department has obtained a large enough budget to meet Wales's need for sea defences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked a question, because on the same day of the terrible floods at Towyn there was serious flooding in his constituency at Peterstone and St. Bride's, where the sea overtopped the sea wall, and at Caerleon and Newport. He asked the Minister:
In view of the certainty of global warming raising sea levels, and because the area has many fine homes and new high technology enterprises, will he guarantee that in the future the area will be fully protected by new flood defences?"—[Official Report, 18 June 1990: Vol. 174, c. 671.]
I mention that question because sea defences concern the whole of Wales; the problem is not confined to the coast of Clwyd, which received such a fearful battering in February.
What research will the Welsh office sponsor to assess the implications of global warming on storm frequency and flood risk along the Welsh coast? What will be the impact on Liverpool bay of global warming and an increase in sea level? The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West touched on housing, and I shall mention it briefly too. The Daily Post—once the Liverpool Daily Post—reported on 7 July that between 800 and 1,300 flood victims were still unable to return to their homes six months after the disaster. The report estimated that more than 200 people are living in caravans and mobile homes next to their properties. Others are living in guest houses and hotels.
Will the Minister of State study the decision of the DSS not to give community care grants to pensioners and families with children who do not get income support? 1 hat means test, in a unique disaster, penalises those who have been thrifty; I say without too much venom that it penalises the very people whom the Government say they want to encourage. The needs of the victims are still immense, and loans will not help them.
Will the Minister of State provide one-off central Government funding for a social work team? The professionals believe that such a team will be needed for a long time. There are people with mental health problems over and above the typical strain and stress. It is a truism to say of this disaster that families are under stress. These families have children in their midst, and the social workers of Clwyd county are doing a good job in the wake of disaster, but they have been taken away from other important work in the county.
I also want the Government to extend the time limit on the Bellwin rules, perhaps even into next year, as has been urged by Clwyd county. The Government's rejection of central Government funding for a social work team has caused great anxiety.
I want to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower about the storm tidal warning service. The estimates include an allowance of £339,000 for that service in the financial year 1990–91. The estimates also mention the costs of tide gauges for the east and west coasts. They mention capital expenditure on them of £42,500. In paragraph 24, the Select Committee recommends an additional tide gauge for the coast of north Wales. Does the £42,500 cover the cost of an additional tide gauge, or how much would one cost? There

is no tide gauge between Holyhead and Hilbre on the estuary of the River Dee. We need one urgently, and we await an outright commitment—today—from the Minister that a gauge will be provided and installed as soon as possible. The lack of a gauge between Holyhead and the mouth of the Dee is a glaring omission, a weakness that must be rectified, and I call on the Minister of State to guarantee—

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I relieve the hon. Gentleman by assuring him that we are giving active consideration to the provision of a tide gauge for the north Wales coast?

Mr. Jones: I shall take that as an absolute guarantee that a gauge will be put in at the earliest opportunity. I also take it that the money will be provided; before the end of the debate. I want the Minister of State to tell me precisely how much such a gauge costs and whether the figure relates to the £42,500 in the estimates. If it does not, the Government have been lazy since February.
It is now the Government's duty to proclaim a strategy, backed by research, expertise and funding, on sea defences. Wales has a major interest in the Government tackling that growing problem. The Government must be determined and imaginative. How great is the danger? What decisions will be taken to defend and protect our people and our shoreline? How soon will those decisions be implemented? The Minister owes us an outline of his policy, especially on the north Wales floods.
It would appear in the end that even these Ministers did not acknowledge soon enough that a disaster of serious proportions had taken place. All of us thank God that it happened in broad daylight, but after six months much remains to be done and the pace must be quickened. Ministers must get a grip on matters and show more leadership. They must reassure public opinion. If they do not show leadership and determination I am sorry to tell the Minister of State that the suffering and fear of those who were flooded will have been in vain.

Mr. Keith Raffan: It is sad that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) concluded with party political points, which were too petty for a debate such as this on a serious disaster. I hope to make points which are above the party political level, like the admirable speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) -I may call him that in this context, since he is the Chairman of the Select Committee—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer).
I am delighted that we are holding this debate on the breach of the sea defences on 26 and 27 February along the north Wales coast. As I said in yesterday's debate, initiated by Plaid Cymru, we hold far too few debates on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] I had the courtesy to listen in silence to the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). As he is so concerned about this disaster—his concern came through in his speech—I hope that he will be courteous enough to listen to my speech without trying to interrupt me or causing distractions by muttering from a sedentary position.
Far too few debates are held on the Floor of the House on Welsh affairs. The Government's responses to the Welsh Select Committee's reports are seldom debated.


That is sad. I agree with the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, that, as a matter of form, the Welsh Grand Committee should debate regularly the reports produced by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. That would save us having to go round the same old circuit discussing the same old issues—the Government choosing the subject on one occasion, the Opposition choosing it the next—with nobody showing any imagination about what to debate.
There is a backlog of reports prepared by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that the Welsh Grand Committee could debate and discuss. I hope that both the Minister of State and the usual channels will take that point on board. I have been accused, even by members of my own party, of being too much of a Welsh Member of Parliament. I regard that not as a criticism but as a label which I wear with pride. I hope that all of us together, above party politics, will press for more debates on Welsh issues—on the Floor of the House and in the Welsh Grand Committee.
The question that dominated the inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and that is dominating this debate was posed to us, as Members of the Select Committee, by the people of Towyn and Ffynnongroyw when we visited those places before taking evidence at Towyn: "How can our communities return to normal life until we are sure, until we are certain that we are safe and secure behind our sea walls?" I hope that the House will bear with me if I make a few points that relate directly to my constituency before I deal with the Select Committee's report.
I am delighted by the assurance that I received today from British Rail that, contrary to rumour, it is to replace the sea wall at Mostyn West, otherwise known as Ffynnongroyw, before the onset of winter. The contract has been let. Work is to start next week and will be completed by the end of September. That will greatly assure the 45 or so families in Ffynnongroyw who were so severely affected by the floods of 26 and 27 February.
I ask the Welsh Office, through its consultant, Hydraulics Research Ltd., to look closely at the design of the new sea wall that British Rail has produced. It is important that the people of Ffynnongroyw should be given every possible assurance. We should therefore have a second opinion on the design.
I also ask the Welsh Office and its consultant, Hydraulics Research Ltd., to look at the Holywell embankment. It was reinstated promptly—I pay tribute to British Rail for that—after the February floods with 25,000 tonnes of demolition material of rock and armour stone, which raised the height of the embankment by about 1 m.
However, as our specialist adviser pointed out to me and to the other Members of the Select Committee when we visited the embankment, there is a danger of the sea entering the gaps between the loose rock and sucking out sand and shingle, which could result in subsidence. Therefore, he suggested—as I did, when we took evidence from British Rail at Towyn—that there should be a filter layer under the wall. British Rail has said in a letter that it is still reviewing the need for a filter layer. Therefore, it would be helpful once again to have a second opinion from Hydraulics Research Ltd.
Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, certain bodies, including British Rail, are exempt from having to obtain consent for sea defence works. All exemptions should

come to an end; I see no reason for them. It is important that British Rail should have to obtain consent for its sea defence works from the coastal protection authority.
The contrast between British Rail's approach and that of the coastal protection authorities is starkly highlighted in my constituency. In the borough of Delyn, the Ffynnongroyw embankment, otherwise known as Mostyn West, is owned by British Rail. It was constructed in 1830 and modified in 1845 and 1920. The Mostyn dock wall was constructed in 1830. The Mostyn embankment was constructed in 1840 and modified in 1920. The Holywell embankment was constructed in 1830. All these sea walls and embankments are also owned by British Rail.
In Rhuddlan, where the local district council is the owner of and therefore responsible for, all sea defences, a totally different situation prevails. Since 1983, £4.5 million has been spent on coast protection. There have been three schemes—phases 1 and 2 at Ffrith beach and phase 3 at central beach. During the next three years, a further £5.6 million will be spent. That illustrates the marked contrast between a maritime district authority—a coastal protection authority—that is directly responsible for its own sea defences—and British Rail, which is a step removed from sea defences, with its headquarters in the south. It is not so fully aware at first hand of the need for sea defences to be modified and renewed regularly.
The Welsh Office has made Rhuddlan borough council's expenditure possible by means of a generous special capital allocation. I pay tribute to the Welsh Office. As Mr. Andrew Rhodes, the former borough surveyor of Rhuddlan, pointed out when he gave evidence to us at Towyn, at one stage a third of all the special capital allocation to Welsh district councils was going to Rhuddlan borough council for its sea defence work. The remaining work needs to be accelerated and completed as soon as possible, thus ensuring that the people of Prestatyn are safe and secure behind their sea defences.
I hope that the Welsh Office will allow the remaining three-year programme to be compressed into two years. Andrew Rhodes, who has just moved from Rhuddlan to the Wirral, believes it to be practicable. I hope that the Minister of State will respond to that point—if not in his reply to the debate then in a letter to me.
I also press the Welsh Office for help in the reconstruction of the Nova complex in Prestatyn. It was devastated by the storms. Rhuddlan borough council is not asking for cash but for permission to spend. It is asking for a capital allocation for excess costs over insurance coverage. The Minister of State will be only too well aware that the Nova complex is central to Prestatyn's economy and its principal industry, tourism. Rhuddlan borough council is in a catch-22 situation. For the complex to be reinsured, it must be redesigned on the seaward side. Insurance will cover only rebuilding, like for like. It will cover replacement, not betterment. Essential design changes will cost at least £200,000 if the external walls are to be rebuilt in reinforced concrete rather than brick.
The council cannot and should not be asked to accommodate that expenditure within its existing capital programme. That would require a reordering of its priorities. I hope that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Wales will look again sympathetically at that matter. I was slightly disappointed by the letter that I received from the Secretary of State on this issue. I realise that, at £200,000, the cost of betterment works would fall well below the cost threshold for special projects


and would therefore not be eligible for support through the top slice arrangements. I hope that the Welsh Office will make an exemption in this case, so that the council does not have to reorder its priorities, which would result in the people of Rhuddlan and Prestatyn losing out on their capital programme.
Now turning to the Select Committee's report, I urge the Government to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a sea defences Bill. That is what we need. As they approach general elections, I know that Governments like to look for non-contentious issues that will command support on all sides of the House so that those who are interested in a particular issue can come to the House, while those who are not can nurse their constituencies and campaign in them.

Dr. Darydd Elis Thomas: And lose.

Mr. Raffan: I hope that the Plaid Cymru Members will help me once again, as they did in the previous two general elections, by putting up a candidate in my constituency, so ensuring my victory. But I can assure them that, if a sea defences Bill is brought before the House, I shall be regular in my attendance and would hope to be on the Standing Committee examining it clause by clause and line by line. The Government should seriously consider introducing a sea defences Bill. It should have three objectives.
First, it should consolidate in one piece of legislation the multiplicity of Acts concerning coastal protection and coastal defences. It should consolidate and rationalise the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Land Drainage Act 1976, the Water Act 1989 and nine other minor Acts which relate to sea defences. Secondly, it should designate a single authority, which our report suggests should be the National Rivers Authority, to co-ordinate and, if necessary, enforce responsibilities relating to coastal protection and flood prevention. It was quite clear during the February floods that co-ordination was not satisfactory. There is an overwhelming need for one authority to assume overall control and responsibility for our sea defences.
I am sorry that Andrew Rhodes, the former borough surveyor of Rhuddlan, has departed to the Wirral, as he is an extremely good borough surveyor and is also extremely quotable. He said in his evidence to us at Towyn:
The forces of nature do not recognise individual borough boundaries.
I accept that the maritime district authorities as the coastal protection authorities have the essential local knowledge and that improvements may have to be funded in part locally. I do not want to deprive them of their powers but to ensure that they use them. I am advocating not centralisation, but effective supervision.
The Select Committee considers the National Rivers Authority to be the natural co-ordinating enforcement body. The Water Act 1989 requires the NRA
to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence.
The NRA has already declared its intention to exercise those powers with regard to all sea defences. It has already approached some maritime district authorities and British Rail. If it took on that role, the NRA would have a

massive task and it must be adequately funded. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will take that on board.
The Coastal Engineering Research Advisory Committee reckons that there are more than 240 separate authorities in the United Kingdom responsible for coast protection, sea defences and port and harbour works. In Wales alone, there are 22 maritime district authorities or coast protection authorities with the power to serve notice on the owners of sea defences to maintain and repair sea defence works.
I see the NRA as a co-ordinating enforcement authority with the following responsibilities: first, drawing up and ensuring the implementation of national strategies; secondly, overall supervision of the Operation Neptune warning system; thirdly, co-ordination and dissemination of coastal engineering research; fourthly, laying down standards of design for sea defences, as CERAC says, to
minimise the adverse effects so evident today as a result of the hotch-potch of design and protection methods along the coast.
Fifthly, the NRA should ensure that coastal protection authority inspections of sea defences are carried out regularly and effectively.
During the evidence session at Towyn, I asked British Rail how regularly its sea defences were monitored by the CPAs and whether monitoring varied from one CPA to another, British Rail responded that it was not aware of monitoring. When I asked whether British Rail regularly met individual coastal protection authorities, the representative of British Rail responded, "Not to my understanding." That is totally unsatisfactory. There must be regular and effective liaison between CPAs and British Rail and other owners of sea defences, and that must be enforced by the NRA as the co-ordinating and enforcement body. Finally, the NRA should have the authority to ensure that CPAs used their powers where necessary to direct the owners of sea defences to upgrade and repair them.
Let me summarise the second important point, that one authority must assume overall control and responsibility for our sea defences. The current Welsh Office approach is far too laid back. It is not enough for the Welsh Office to say:
There is nothing in the present arrangements to prevent local interests grouping together to ensure that the wider interests of their coast are taken into account".
That is too lackadaisical.

Dr. Thomas: I support the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he might like to ask the Minister of State a direct question about the Government's likely response to the NRA survey. It is one thing to talk about the NRA survey, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said so eloquently, those of us who have visited Towyn are aware of the residual fears about the future. We must be assured that the survey on sea defences will result in action and funding to ensure that all areas that might be susceptible to the inundation that occurred at Towyn will be defended.

Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will respond to that point.
I reiterate that the present arrangements are far too informal. The informal gatherings of officers and agencies on a coastal cell basis are quite inadequate. We understand from their evidence to us at Towyn that they meet informally only twice a year. Co-ordination must be


formalised, and we look to the Welsh Office to do that now. There should be no more delay. If there are further storms and inundations of our sea defences and ineffective co-ordination, we shall hold the Welsh Office responsible. It must act promptly and effectively.
I know that it is rather late in the session to start talking about a new Bill in the next one, but if the Government do not introduce a sea defences Bill, we expect them to act by order and to provide guidance circulars through the Welsh Office.
The third part of a sea defences Bill should involve a revision of the grant system. Currently, grant aid is available for capital work, but not for maintenance renewal and replenishment works. The system now in operation militates in favour of hard defences, which require little maintenance or renewal, and against the extension of soft defences, which require constant maintenance and renewal. For example, when the sea has washed shingle and sand to one end of the beach, lorries have to be brought in to truck that sand and shingle back to the other end of the beach, but that is not eligible for grant aid.
To a large extent, hard defences have been discredited. In Prestatyn in my constituency, millions of pounds were spent in the 1930s and 1940s on replacing sand dunes, nature's defences, with hard concrete walls. Unlike the dunes, the hard defences reflect waves; they do not absorb them. As a result, the beach level dropped dramatically and the waves took the beach away with them and undermined the walls. Now, in the 1980s and 1990s, millions of pounds are being spent on replacing the hard defences with soft defences. It would have been better had we never tampered with nature. Those soft defences will absorb waves rather than reflect them, so we hope that the beach levels will rise and be restored.
The Chairman of the Select Committee opened the evidence session at Towyn with a Chinese proverb, and if he will allow me, I shall quote it today:
Nothing under heaven is softer or more yielding than water, but when it attacks things hard and resistant not one of them can prevail.
We cannot master nature and we cannot master the sea with concrete and stone. We can defeat it only by emulating nature and mirroring the effect of sand dunes.
Britain has been much slower than other maritime countries to construct soft defences and to employ nature's methods to keep the sea at bay. The Dutch regularly create sand dunes 200 m deep in front of clay-earth embankments. We must change our financing rules so as not to discourage soft defences. That would also—this will appeal to the Treasury Bench—make the Government's money go further.
The cost of sea defences is considerable. In capital terms, hard defences are much more expensive than soft defences. Prestatyn has spent £4.5 million and will spend a further £5.6 million in the next three years on soft defences; restoring existing hard defences would have cost infinitely more. The inquiry was told that British Rail will spend £6 million on replacing sea walls at Mostyn and Towyn.
The cost of sea defences will rise quite dramatically in forthcoming years and the Government must allow for that. The initial capital outlay on soft defences will be less than for hard defences, and I believe that it is a far better investment to protect our coastline.
My constituency was not so severely affected as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West. I worked out that 2,800 properties were flooded to some extent in and around Towyn, and a further 98 in Rhyl. A total of about 80 properties were affected in Ffynnongroyw, Prestatyn and Bagillt in my constituency.
It is not however, a question of the quantity of properties that were invaded by the sea, because the human suffering to each family, and the scale of it, is the same. I visited Ffynnongroyw, Bagillt and Prestatyn in the immediate aftermath of the floods and could see the damage that the sea had wreaked, not just to property but to people's morale and mental state. There is a responsibility on people to ensure that their properties and their contents are insured, but equally there is a responsibility on Government and their agencies to ensure that these events are not repeated.
We look to the Welsh Office for a positive and prompt response to the report. We do not want weeks and months to pass. The Select Committee worked very hard to publish the report today, and we want a response from the Government quickly and promptly—not after the summer recess but before it. I accept that the Minister of State will have had little time to read the report before today's debate, but I hope that he will press on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown his deep concern and caring, which is shared in all parts of the House, the fact that we look to him, if at all possible, for a statement before the House rises for the summer recess so that we can further cross-examine the Government on the positive, constructive measures that they propose in response to this very good report that the Chairman of the Select Committee and its other members have produced.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I intend to comment on the report that was published today, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will necessarily regard that as a definitive Government response; he will have to wait at least some days for that.

Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth. In my usual generous way, I said that we do not expect a definitive response today, but it is not too much for us to ask at least for a partial statement on the Government's proposals before the House rises for the summer recess.
I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West are concerned. My constituents in Ffynnongroyw are concerned and are holding a further meeting next week because of unfounded rumours that British Rail are not to carry out work to replace the sea wall at Ffynnongroyw by September. Their concern is evident and we look to Ministers to respond directly.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to all those involved in ensuring that this disaster did not become a tragedy with loss of life. All the emergency services—the ambulance, fire and police services—deserve our thanks and gratitude for all that they did.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Gower, who has done a service not just to the House and to its reputation in this constructive debate but to our constituents by allowing the Select Committee to proceed with the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West and I made for an inquiry into sea


defences in North Wales to be carried out promptly, efficiently and effectively. That was, as he quite rightly said, made possible by the eminent specialist adviser whom we were able to engage to help us—Professor O'Connor—and by the Clerk and his assistants, David Harrison and Frank McShane. It has been an example of Parliament and the House at its best. I only wish the work of the Select Committee and its Chairman were emulated more frequently by fellow hon. Members.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on an objective speech and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), whose constituents suffered much as a result of what happened last February at Towyn.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), gave a tremendous account of the Committee's work. The Committee was fortunate to have a geographer as its Chairman, because he was able to deal with many of the relevant points.
Events at Towyn on 26 February were not easy to predict. They were caused by environmental changes such as global warming and changes in weather patterns, particularly those related to the greenhouse effect. We cannot predict exactly what will happen in the future, but the events of 26 February took many by surprise. We all remember the gales, which, alarmingly, occurred almost every week last February, in Wales and the rest of Britain. They blew down trees around my house that had been standing for many years.
It is easy, with hindsight, to be critical about measures that should have been taken at that time but were not. Although such events cannot be prevented, their effects can at least be alleviated by proper use of the emergency procedures.
The reason for the debate is the flooding of land, much of which was below sea level, in Towyn, Kinmel Bay, Rhyl and Ffynnongroyw on 26 February 1990. The devastation that occurred made a deep impression on me. I paid two visits to the area, and on my first visit in March I saw people who had been made homeless and pathetic skips of ruined possessions piled high in their backyards. Eight hundred people are still not back in their own homes, some of which were gutted to the brickwork, with floors removed as a result of damage to woodwork. It was a pathetic sight indeed.
The fact that many of those people were not properly insured—it is estimated that 40 per cent. were not insured for personal possessions—is a commentary on the fact that they were pensioners who had little capital and could not insure adequately. That is covered in the report.
The state of readiness of the emergency services is rightly addressed by the report. We need to remind ourselves that it was not only individuals and their properties that were affected. I came across one business that had lost £1 million-worth of assets in the flooding, which has had a serious effect on small businesses in the area, as well as on farms and farmland. The state of readiness could have been better. I am puzzled that references have been made time and again to the fact that this was a one-in-200-years occurrence. However, when we

look at the detail, we find that there were storms and flooding in 1975, again in 1983 and finally, the catastrophic floods in 1990. That suggests that there is a seven-year cycle. Weather changes and environmental changes must be having an effect.
The role of the local authorities, of the National Rivers Authority, of the police and of other emergency services, such as the fire and ambulance services, should be tremendously praised. We may be critical about what happened, but there is no doubt that the fact that not one person lost his life at the time is a great credit to the emergency services. Sadly, as a result of trauma and shock, some infirm people passed away later.
Clearly, the emergency procedures broke down in this case. The Chairman of the Select Committee has put his finger on some of the issues that need to be examined. I noted in the report—indeed, there was evidence of this—that at some point in the middle of the night, a fax machine in one of the police headquarters broke down. If that was the only line of communication, communications were inadequate. There should have been a double-check, fail-safe system in which there were dual warnings. The fact remains that it took six hours and 23 minutes for the information to get through to Colwyn borough council. As we know, matters that should have been dealt with were not dealt with at that time. In mitigation, we must say that these circumstances were exceptional and had not been experienced before. We can learn from them.
The delays that occurred were dual. They occurred first, in the chain of command of the Neptune system and secondly through the Meteorological Office, the NRA, the police and in the local authorities themselves. Both aspects need to be put right.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital to emphasise that the North Wales police fax machine—to which he referred—which broke down should have relayed a message to the Delyn borough council area. It was not the same message that was being relayed to the Colwyn borough council area, which was received at 8.53 am on 26 February.

Mr. Livsey: I accept, as the Chairman has said, that there may be a different system. That points to the need for consistency in communications.
Can such a disaster happen again? That is the great fear of everyone in the area. The fact that high tides are due in October was on the lips of almost everyone whom I met in the area.
This was a major disaster, but because people did not lose their lives, it has not been sufficiently acknowledged as such. The morale of the people is poor as a result of the past six months' delay in putting their houses right—much, but not all, of which is understandable. It is strange that the Prime Minister has not visited the victims of the disaster. I do not know the reasons for that as she has visited most other disaster organisations. Not long ago, I was handed a card that said, "Please do not visit me, Prime Minister, if I am involved in a disaster." I do not necessarily accept that, but it seems strange that she did not visit the site and the people involved.
I am glad that British Rail has decided to spend £6 million on the repair to the sea wall. That is a good response and needs to be acknowledged.
It is especially important to note that the report stresses that there should be only one co-ordinating body. The


report is right in its conclusion that the NRA should be that body. That single authority must have a clear duty to inform everyone in the emergency services that trouble is on the way. The only problem is that the NRA has only about £6 million a year for sea defences throughout the United Kingdom. That is an inadequate sum in view of the damage on this one occasion.
Another important point in the report is the softer defences, which have been mentioned by several hon. Members. We need defences that run in with the environment and that will absorb the impact of the sea, which, as all hon. Members know, is a powerful force. The sting needs to be taken out the sea and hard defences are not necessarily the best devices for that.
The maintenance grants recommended in the report are especially important. The problem is that vast sums are needed for maintenance. What will the Minister do about prioritising that money? What are the priority points in Wales where money should first be spent? Where are the problems greatest?
If strategic plans allow houses to be built below sea level, planning must be carefully monitored. I spoke to the daughter of a former councillor in the Colwyn area. Her father had been a councillor in the 1950s and 1960s. She told me that at that time, planning permission was solidly refused in the area where houses have now been built. It is because of the overturn of a Welsh Office appeal that some of those houses have been allowed to be built. On visiting Towyn, I was also told that it was strange that it had taken until the middle of the 20th century for houses to be built in that area when the medieval Welsh had not built on those low-level sites. There are lessons to be learned there. The report contains the seeds of reform that will put people who are vulnerable to sea flooding in a far better position.
The cost of the disaster has had an impact on local authorities. The Government have assisted local authorities by upping the Bellwin formula from 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of my party, received a letter from the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend visited the site about three weeks ago and saw the position for himself. He wrote to the Prime Minister on his return and she replied:
On current estimates `Bellwin' is expected to produce a Government contribution to the costs incurred by local authorities of almost £1½m".
Towards the end of the letter, the Prime Minister said:
In total it is expected that the Government contribution to the cost of alleviating the problems caused by the flooding will be in the order of £4m and could well exceed that figure.
My information, from discussions with the local authorities up there, and especially with Colwyn district council, is that the total cost might be £6 million. It looks as though there will be a shortfall of about £2 million in the costs incurred. It is implicit that local authorities will have to find 15 per cent. of the funding, given the 85 per cent. revised Bellwin formula. A lot of money is at stake for the local authorities, and it might result in increased poll tax charges—

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I correct the hon. Gentleman by assuring him that the amount that will be met under the Bellwin formula is 95 per cent.?

Mr. Livsey: I am pleased to hear that. I acknowledge that information.
Finally, despite what the Minister has just said, there is a considerable shortfall of funding in many senses. I hope

that the Welsh Office will take it upon itself completely to make good any shortfall that the maritime local authorities in north Wales might face. They should not have to pick up the bill for these exceptional circumstances. I commend to the House the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I urge the Government to accept it rapidly and to act on it quickly.

Mr. David Harris: Although the debate has been billed and trailed as concerned primarily with Wales, and especially with north Wales—that is quite right and proper—the documents on which it is based include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates on coastal protection, which cover England. I am grateful for this oppo'rtunity to participate in the debate and wish first to express sympathy to the residents of Towyn from fellow sufferers from flooding and sea damage in Cornwall. We were all moved by their dreadful experiences during that storm.
It is sad that it requires a tragedy on that scale—one can think back 37 years to the tragedy that occurred in East Anglia—to remind us that the sea is always capable of causing damage, and to focus the attention of all of us on what needs to be done in such circumstances. I emphasise "all of us" because, like other hon. Members, I wish to refer later to the multiplicity of agencies and services, from the Government downwards, that are involved in coping with that problem when it occurs and—perhaps more importantly—in trying to prevent it.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was absolutely right to point out that the rest of the country can learn from what happened in north Wales. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the dangers of global warming. Frankly, I do not know whether global warming will present a serious problem. I suspect that it will, but I do not know, and, if we are honest, not one of us can say that we know. However, what I do know is that, at this very moment, cliffs are being eroded in my own constituency. Only last Friday, I visited a lady who had lost 12 ft of her front garden into the sea. She is desperately worried that. before too long, perhaps over a period of years—she does not know, I do not know, nobody knows—her bungalow could end up in the sea. That is the awfulness of this situation.
Although the winter storms are now over, the fear that they caused remains. It remains for the lady I visited. Whenever the wind gets up and the sea rises, especially if the wind is blowing in a particular direction and there is a spring tide, she will be worried stiff. Exactly the same goes for people who happen to live near the sea in north Wales, East Anglia or elsewhere in Cornwall, part of which I represent. My constituency juts out into the Atlantic. There is sea on both sides. It takes the brunt of all the bad weather coming in from the Atlantic. So many parts of it are at risk right now.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that the House, the Government and all the agencies involved should turn their attention to this problem. I am glad that they are doing so. Since the storm last winter, I have been involved in talks with a number of agencies. Only last Friday, Baroness Trumpington, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place, visited my constituency and saw things there for herself. She


could not believe what she saw or the damage that had been caused by the sea towering up to swamp houses. She visited Porthleven, pictures of which went around the world just before Christmas, showing the immense seas. I was there on the Sunday, and had never seen such seas before in my life. As I have said, people like the villagers and townspeople of Porthleven always feel that fear when the wind blows and the sea rises. That is the problem we face.
My part-time hobby is walking the coastal path in my constituency. At place after place, I have seen areas of cliff—and communities—exposed. The village at Coverack was in danger of being cut in two. Thank goodness, steps have been taken in recent months to avoid that happening. All around the Lizard, areas are exposed. I have already mentioned Porthleven which took the brunt of the pre-Christmas storms. Again, at Praa Sands, whole areas have been undermined by the sea. It is the same story at Marazion, and Newlyn is also at risk. Floods poured in just before Christmas. At Mousehole, the harbour defences were badly battered and part of the car park disappeared. Around the other coast at Sennen, a road could now well be in danger. A whole area is exposed and would have suffered serious problems if the tide had been in a different direction.
The scale of the problem is enormous. I have spoken only about my constituency, which is perhaps dramatically affected, but other constituencies in Cornwall face similar problems. As we have heard, parts of Wales, East Anglia and other areas of our coast line are at risk.
What can be done about it? I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). I shall not embarrass my boss, the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council, by saying that I think a sea defences Bill should be introduced in the next Session. As his parliamentary private secretary, it would not be for me to suggest such timing. However, I believe that the introduction of legislation to bring together all the miscellaneous bits of legislation is long overdue. We also need to try to clear up the hotch-potch of agencies and organisations involved in this matter. Perhaps we cannot do so entirely, but I echo what has already been said, that the National Rivers Authority is the right organisation to take the lead in this matter.
At the moment, district councils have the prime responsibility for promoting coast protection schemes. I wonder how long that will continue, given the pressure on district councils, especially those that are hard-pressed because of the extent of the problem to which I have referred. The Government must reconsider the organisation and financing of coastal protection.
Financing such protection is complex and complicated. I attended a seminar for councillors on this subject by the NRA and MAFF. One had to listen with great care to try to understand all the different layers of grants that might apply in different circumstances. As far as possible, we should simplify this whole procedure—the organisation, legislation and finance. It will not be easy, but I urge the Government to take an urgent look at the matter.
I am delighted that our former colleague in the House, Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the NRA, has taken a lead on this issue. Speaking in Exeter in March this year,

following the winter storms, he announced the start of a major NRA survey of the sea defences around the coastline of England and Wales.
That is a good start, but we must go further. In Cornwall, the NRA has taken a lead—I pay the authority tribute for its efforts—by calling the councils together. As a result of a meeting at county hall a few weeks ago, an advisory or co-ordinating committee will be established to bring the various organisations together. But we must go even further and introduce the type of legislation to which reference has been made.
We had an excellent debate late at night last March initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on the whole question of coastal defences. In concluding his remarks, he pressed on the Government the acronym "CRAC" which, he said, stood for coordination, research, action and cash. I echo those sentiments.
I applaud those who have taken part in today's debate for their constructive remarks. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government—I am sure that they are seized of the importance of the matter—to implement CRAC and to crack on with it.

Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones: I represent an island constituency that has 125 miles of coastline. My constituents are well aware of the dangers and power of the sea. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be aware that many in my constituency have suffered as a result of the power of the sea over the generations, and they will sympathise with the plight of the people of Towyn and Abergele following the storms last February. Indeed, one of my forebears was drowned at sea. That family tragedy came back to me forcibly when I visited the area with the Welsh Select Committee in May.
The memory of that visit will stay with me for ever. I was struck by the desperate plight of the people, for it is a human tragedy when people are inundated with water, must leave their homes, and for weeks, perhaps months, are unable to return to them. Ask our constituents on a scale of values what they value most, and I imagine that they will say first their homes and communities. Those homes and communities were destroyed in the floods at Towyn, where I saw the tragedy on a vast scale.
Another abiding memory is the desolation I saw at Towyn, with vast areas of land without any growth whatever. We saw a few tufts of grass, but for the most part the land was bare and totally desolate. We visited many streets of empty properties. I am talking of properties that were stripped of everything. They were no longer homes, just buildings with bricks stripped bare. There were no floorboards—nothing—just twisted pipes and desolation.
We spoke to people who were suffering tremendous psychological problems as a result of the disaster. We spoke to counsellors who had expertise in providing assistance to people suffering that form of distress. I was impressed with the quality of the advice they gave under such difficult conditions. They had been trained in stress counselling, but I was disappointed that many of them had had to qualify as stress counsellors at their own expense.
No resources were available publicly to train stress counsellors in areas such as Towyn. We must look into that situation.
During our visit I took the opportunity to walk about with a local councillor. I spoke to a number of people in their homes and they graphically described the events of the storm. I asked, "When did you first realise that the water was about to engulf you?" They replied, "We first saw it coming over the garden wall. Within six seconds we were up to our waists in water. Seconds later we saw our fridges, washing machines and tables and chairs floating by our heads. We were washed out of our homes. We had no opportunity to collect our belongings or even our thoughts." That was a graphic description of the power of the sea, and it left a deep impression on every member of the Select Committee who visited Towyn.
I could not believe that there was not some system to warn them about the effect of the sea—that technology had not advanced to the stage when people could be warned that they would be inundated with water—and that is why I followed a certain line of questioning of officials of Colwyn borough council and other local authority officials at the community centre in Towyn. I felt that it was our duty as a Select Committee to find out why the people were not warned.
I recall walking in Towyn along the wall that had been repaired by British Rail. I asked one of the locals, "Describe what happened when that wall breached." He replied, "I looked from my window, and it was almost as though somebody was drawing a curtain open when the wall collapsed, it happened so quickly."
The people of Towyn—the residents and local authority officials—did not realise that a disaster was occurring until the water had come over the wall. When we asked the officials, "When did you realise that you had a disaster on your hands?" their answer was, "When we saw the water coming over the wall."
It is not for us to apportion blame to individual council officials, but it is our duty to ascertain the facts. Having ascertained them, without apportioning blame, we must do our best to rectify an unsatisfactory situation. That is why we say in our report that there must be a better system of providing, and communicating, information to ensure that such a tragedy does not recur. In other words, if there is a similar occurrence, as might be the case late at night, it must he possible to move people from the area in time to avoid loss of life.
If the Welsh Select Committee has been able to achieve anything, it has examined the situation in such a way that it can tell the Welsh Office and other responsible authorities, "Should such flooding happen again, we are now in a position to make recommendations to ensure that proper information is made available quickly so that people can be moved from their homes before the water engulfs them." If we do that, we shall have done our duty in part.
When we took evidence, I also questioned British Rail officials on how they could respond to the need for repair work on the wall. I was glad that the Committee was given an assurance that British Rail intended to spend £6 million to restore the wall, improve it and ensure that we have proper sea defences in the area. Like the hon. Member for Delyn I hope that the Welsh Office will also respond. We cannot leave the entire responsibility for repair work on the sea defences to British Rail, which is a public utility. We have a wider duty as Members of Parliament. We must

tell the Welsh Office that it must make public money available to British Rail to assist it in that work. British Rail told us that it was prepared to spend £6 million. We ask the Government to match that commitment.
Two further small points are important to the debate. The first is planning and land use in the area. Is it right for us immediately to consider a moratorium on further development in the area? If the recommendations of the Select Committee are accepted, it will mean de facto that there will be no further development. If local searches disclose that the area is susceptible to flooding, prospective purchasers will be put on warning. However, I do not believe that that should happen. There should be a moratorium on further planning consents until there has been an adequate response to the problem of sea defence.
We saw the desolation of the land around Towyn. That means that the agricultural community also suffered from the flooding. The Government should make a commitment to make funds available to compensate farmers who suffered badly in such disasters, whether at Towyn, Abergele, Kinmel bay or any other part of Wales.
I congratulate the Chair of the Committee on the way in which he organised us during our visit to Towyn and conducted the work of the Committee. I also congratulate him on the speed with which the report was made available to us. The officials of the Committee are also to be complimented. We await the response of the Welsh Office, which we hope and believe will be equally quick.

Mr. David Porter: I welcome any money in the estimates for coast protection and sea defences. In the light of the debate on global warming and rising sea levels, one could always argue that the sums are not enough. However, today's debate shows the taxpayer's commitment to sea defences. That is important. It also shows that the Government recognise that sea defences are a national, not a local issue. For that reason I am delighted to see sea defences mentioned on the Order Paper today.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), I took the precaution of clarifying with Mr. Speaker before the debate that we could stretch your well-known tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by widening the debate to areas beyond the Welsh coast.
I raised sea defence coast protection on the motion for the Easter Adjournment. In that debate I spoke after my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and expressed my sympathy for the plight of his constituents, adding the rider that it was only by the grace of God and the direction of the wind that we on the east coast were spared a similar fate. Little has changed since then, other than the fact that next winter is a few months closer.
I wish to raise several points which are not new but as we are that much closer to winter, perhaps they need to be made as forcefully as possible over and over again. We have gone over much of the old ground today, but one newish issue is the importance that we attach to the environmental debate when considering sea defences arid how much weight it should carry in the balance of spending.
In reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), told me:


In deciding whether or not to give such consent our policy is to require a proposal to be technically sound, cost effective and environmentally sympathetic and we have no plans to change that policy.
That is fair enough. It appears that the Government give equal weight to all three elements. My hon. Friend continued:
We are not aware of any case in which a coast protection authority has decided not to seek our approval for works because environmental considerations were judged to override protection of homes. No proposal submitted to us has been denied our consent solely by reason of environmental considerations".
Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State issue a circular to all local authorities clarifying that?
The last point leads directly to my next, which is about a cluster of homes on the sand cliffs at Easton Baveants near Southwold, where a strengthening scheme is planned. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot give a verdict until all the statutory procedures are met. Ministers have assured me that it will be processed rapidly but that environmental and statutory objections must be taken into account. Suffolk county council, wearing its Suffolk heritage coast hat, will be raising objections. Again, a balance must be struck between environmentally gentle decay of the sand cliff and a scheme to save the houses in the immediate term and in the long run perhaps half Southwold, half Reydon, marshes, farmland and houses. It is not unreasonable to suggest that if those or any other houses are to be allowed to drop into the sea, compensation should be paid to the people caught in that balance and caught in the machine.
The Coast Protection Act 1949 makes no provision for compensation and the Government have no plans to amend the Act to introduce such compensation. I plead that they should urgently reconsider their position. Compensation could be cheaper than sea defence schemes and it could certainly allow the natural erosion line much more scope.
It is too much to expect one council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with its wide brief, or any individual to determine the relative value of houses, land and the environment. No one person can evaluate whether sand and gravel, for example dredged from Sizewell B, should be piled on the beach to strengthen it or whether artificial reefs should be created off shore to soft-engineer a changing coast line. No one person can evaluate replacing hard engineering walls and groynes. No one person can do that, and nor can the more than 200 separate authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and other hon. Members have referred. Each authority has some measure of responsibility for coast protection. It can make only an ad hoc, piecemeal attempt. Surely one lesson from Towyn, from the 1953 floods in East Anglia and from any other erosion is that if we meddle with one part of the coast and strengthen one area, we weaken and make more vulnerable another. Everything that we do has an impact.
It is a pity that it has taken the tragedy of Towyn to give us the Select Committee report, which has put one body on the agenda. For that reason, I welcome the report. The National Rivers Authority is the obvious body. Why on earth is it not beefed up now, without further delay? We should ask it to undertake a nationwide review of responsibility for the coast. Of course, we should allow

and, indeed, welcome any input from local authorities and experts, but let us have one buck, one body, one stop. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who suggested that there should be a Bill on the matter, but we could do a great deal straight away simply by giving the NRA the necessary authority. Let us do so now before East Anglia is swamped.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) about the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. If it is to be given more responsibility, we must, for goodness' sake, ensure that it has the resources necessary to undertake it. It would be invidious to put extra responsibilities on the NRA without providing it with the adequate resources. I sympathise with the people of East Anglia and appreciate their fears, but the Welsh office must ensure that there is direct Welsh Office funding of the NRA's activities in Wales otherwise there is a danger that all the money will, understandably, be attracted to East Anglia.
I thank the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs for the work it has done. I am not a member of that Committee, although I enjoyed being one in the past. It held a session in Wales when it took evidence, which was a great success. When a local problem occurs, a public session in that area, which takes evidence, goes down well with the people. They feel that the needs of the area are being properly taken into account and that Parliament is working more directly for them.
I regret that this debate is taking place within a few hours of the publication of the report because, unlike other hon. Members, I have not had an opportunity to study it. That has put me in a difficult position, but no doubt the Minister and his hon. Friends are in the same one. None the less, I am delighted that it is possible to have prompt debates in the House on Select Committee reports. I agree with the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that Welsh Grand Committee sessions should be used to debate such reports—that would be much more useful than some of the stereotype debates presently held.
I extend my sympathy to the people of Towyn who have suffered so much—what happened was a tragedy. I live a few miles along the coast from Towyn and, having driven backwards and forwards along that coast, I have seen the problems for myself. We have all heard devastating stories, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) quoted effectively. The tragedy has hit everyone. I only wish that the response from private citizens had been better to the appeal that was launched. I am glad that the Government came forward when they did with the cash.
The tragedy has affected everyone, including young people. A crowd of young teenagers in my constituency organised a rock concert—I have been told that I am supposed to refer to it as a "gig"—to raise money for the sufferers in Towyn. I am delighted that in one night that concert raised £550 and that my daughter Eluned and my son Hywel participated, along with dozens of others. Some 400 youngsters went to the concert, which was supported by everyone in the locality. That demonstrates the feeling in the area towards those who have suffered in Towyn. I also join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the


emergency workers for the part they played. I have heard nothing but glowing praise from all directions for their work.
Obviously, this debate concentrates on Towyn because of the report just published and the experiences in February. There are, however, many other areas that suffered floods in the winter which are in danger of suffering from further floods if we are witnessing long-term changes in our climatic pattern. East Anglia is one such area under threat, but the coastline of my constituency covers some 100 miles, and hon. Members will appreciate that there are many vulnerable spots along it. Houses and communities risk being flooded, but there is the even greater danger of the loss, sometimes permanent, of valuable agricultural land.
The floods of Towyn have highlighted the need for preventive work. I am not convinced that we have anything like the resource commitment necessary to undertake that work. Under the Bellwin formula, a large proportion of the costs of such disasters are met by central Government. Such money is welcome in the area in which it can be applied, but it is worth noting that the terms of the Bellwin scheme are designed to
provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise have an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life and property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities.
The Bellwin formula applies to immediate work only and the money given is consequent on a tragedy—in other words, that money is not available for preventive work. We need the resources for such work.
One of the two district councils in my area, the Dwyfor district council, has approached the Welsh Office because of flooding in Nefyn and Morfa Bychan. It needs permission from the Welsh Office to undertake additional capital expenditure to prevent future flooding. I know that there are many other areas along the coast of Wales that have similar problems.
Two areas close to my home, Dinas Dinlle and Llandwrog, have experienced severe flooding of which the Minister will be aware. It has been estimated that the work necessary to put things right in Dinas Dinlle would cost £1 million, but that money is not available. Does responsibility for that work rest with Arfon borough council or the NRA? I understand that the NRA can fund up to 75 per cent. of such work, but we must ensure that it has the resources for such work. I know that in Clwyd the NRA has had almost all its money wiped out because of the action it took during the Towyn floods—it was involved from the early stages and helped to put down sandbags and the like. The NRA should receive central funding. At present, much of its work is locally funded, but we must reconsider its funding, especially if it is to meet the responsibilities placed on it.
It is also important to consider the way in which cost-benefit analysis is used to determine whether capital work should be undertaken. Although such analysis is perfectly acceptable, a wider definition of the benefits of such work should be given rather than short-term, quantifiable ones. In Dinas Dinlle, the loss of land through flooding will have a major effect on tourism and amenities as well as on agriculture. The way in which the cost-benefit analysis is drawn up does not, however, adequately allow for such elements to be taken into consideration.
Close to the village of Llandwrog, four farms—Bodfan. Caer Loda, Ty Mawr and Maes Mawr—have been badly affected by floods. About 150 acres of agricultural land have been badly damaged because of sea breaking through the coast defences. The cost-benefit analysis undertaken showed that work to put matters right—building 1.8 km of new embankment to safeguard that land—would cost £440,000. The benefit of such work was quantified at £106,000.
I find it difficult to accept that such a cost-benefit analysis can be applied properly. Those four farms lost important parts of their land from the ravages of the sea. A lot of low land along the Welsh coast could be equally vulnerable, but a cost-benefit analysis in each case would yield the same result. Investment would therefore not he made, and the pattern of Welsh farming would be disrupted. In Wales, we follow the old Hafod and Hendre pattern of farming, whereby the sheep are brought down from the mountains to graze on the lowlands in the winter. If those lands have lost their nutritional value, the sheep cannot be kept there, and the entire balance of Welsh agriculture will be thrown out.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a crucial difficulty, as the cost-benefit analysis creates a catch-22 problem. The Welsh Office has recently issued new strategic planning guidelines and, if one permits further developments along the coastal belt, greater sea defence strengthening can take place, when judged on a formula similar to the Waverley committee recommendations. If there is a moratorium on further developments along the coastal belt, the sea defences permitted under the cost-benefit formula will be far smaller and less expensive than the defences required if those further developments are permitted along the coast.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, that is a great irony. It is catch-22. That is apposite to the case of Dinas Dinlle. Some of the sites there that might otherwise have been developed should now at least have the benefit of a moratorium because of the danger of allowing development in areas that are vulnerable to the sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, the only way of upping cost benefit may be by granting some planning permissions and that is a silly situation to be in. I realise that the impact of such developments is fairly recent, but there does need to be some new thinking in the Welsh Office.
As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A Meyer) said in his excellent speech, about a thousand acres of agriculture land in the vicinity of Towyn have been flooded. The Welsh Office has been willing to assist those farmers who have been affected and has given help in the form of gypsum, but it is a pity that such help cannot be extended to other areas. On 25 April, the then Secretary of State for Wales wrote to me saying that the gypsum being provided for the Towyn area should not be taken as a precedent for other agricultural areas. That is a problem, because many farms need such assistance.
The National Farmers Union has highlighted three areas for action. First, if gypsum is not effective in the Towyn area, alternatives should be investigated and followed up. Secondly, there should be a detailed review of sea defences around the Welsh coast with the financial resources to make that meaningful. Thirdly—an important point to which I draw the Minister's attention—there should be a register setting out who is responsible for each


individual sea defence, and that should be made available. That is a good suggestion which would ensure that any necessary action is taken.
The Minister may be aware that Meirionnydd district council has taken the initiative and undertaken a coastal zone management study of the Cambrian coast area and it is hoping that the whole Cambrian coast will be considered. The district council says:
The plan is to carry out the work over a three year period and to produce an inventory of existing coastal works; the definition of coastal processes and design criteria to apply across identified sections of shoreline and the recommended approach to future coastal works.
That will be an excellent study. It has the support of the Welsh Office, and I hope that it will give resources where necessary.
There are lessons to be learned from the experience of Towyn. I welcome this debate and the Select Committee's recommendations. I realise that the Minister cannot respond in detail to all of them tonight, but I support the plea by Conservative Back Benchers for a statement before we adjourn for the summer recess on the response of the Welsh Office. I am grateful to the Select Committee for its work.

Mr. Martyn Jones: As a Clwyd Member, my constituency has no coastline, but I have a great concern for the people affected in Towyn. As has been said, if the flooding had occurred during the night there would have been deaths and, sadly, if there had been deaths, more concern would have been expressed nationally. Thankfully, no one died, but the disaster has been brushed under the carpet and has not received the publicity that it should have done. It should have been publicised more widely. With global warming, world temperatures and sea levels will rise and we need a national co-ordinating authority if we are to tackle properly the problems that we shall face.
I heard on the radio the other day about the East Anglian floods in 1953. I was only six at the time, so I do not remember them, but I am sure that some hon. Members do. Sadly, deaths did occur then, but apparently there was a much more co-ordinated response. I am told that that disaster captured the nation's imagination. The flooding at Towyn was second only to the East Anglian flooding in terms of damage done and the number of people affected, but it does not seem to have aroused the same national concern, as it should have done.
We need to examine ways forward and to decide whether to maintain the status quo, to group together under existing legislation to form a coast protection board, to concentrate responsibility on the National Rivers Authority, or to establish a new national authority with appropriate powers to deal with sea defence and coastal protection.
Since its establishment in September 1989, the NRA seems to have had problems dealing with emergencies on the scale of that at Towyn. It has also had to deal with the Mersey pollution and the Tewkesbury flooding. Its powers appear to be somewhat limited when it comes to dealing with the sort of problems that we faced in Towyn. The NRA's staffing levels are not adequate and there needs to

be more co-ordination between the various bodies, particularly in respect of the long-term planning of developments in areas such as Towyn.
The local councils have called on the Welsh Office for an investigative analysis of the conditions in Liverpool bay relating to climatic changes, the consequences of raised sea levels and the increased frequency of storms. They have requested an investigation of alternatives for improved co-ordination within existing legislation and have called on the county and district councils, with the NRA, to prepare reports on the preparation of a flood hazard map for the Clwyd coastal area.
Clwyd county council put in an enormous amount of effort, and credit should be given to it for that. Not being a member of the Select Committee, I have not read the report, but I am sure that credit will be given to the councils involved. The difference between the district council and the county council is that the district has immediate responsibility and, seemingly, some immediate financial help, whereas the county appears to have done rather more and received rather less help.
In terms of social services and community services, the county provided local advice and information centres at Kinmel bay and Towyn community centres. Contact was made with residents for the purpose of a basic assessment of need and that work was carried out largely with the support of social work staff seconded to the department from other local authorities, significantly those in Wales and the north-west of England. That work was completed by the end of March, but it was decided that further problems needed to be examined. As of 2 April 1990, therefore, a community social work team was established in Towyn to serve the needs of Pensarn, Towyn and Kinmel bay. Staff were seconded from social work teams in Clwyd and from Cheshire and Knowsley.
Social work was being carried out and initiatives were being taken to prevent problems such as family breakdown. We have heard some graphic accounts of the kind of problem that arose at the time. It is perhaps rather more difficult to arouse public interest in the horrendous long-term problem. A statement by a resident whose house was not fully insured illustrates the long-term problems faced by the county council:
I just feel rootless. Your house is ripped apart, your contents not covered. I know that it's my fault, in fact I feel homeless even though I know I have a home. We don't feel well and healthy; it's a miserable existence. I am working as a professional and can identify my own feelings and somehow can't act on them. I feel resentment and guilt although I don't know why. I know why I feel resentment, but not why I feel guilt. For the first time in my life I feel inadequate, I feel things are out of hand. I can't cope with the children the same, my patience is not as it was, I want to blame someone. It sounds crazy but I don't think I am different to anyone else and many are worse off than us.
Such problems must be acknowledged as requiring a social response of at least medium-term duration, and there must be a recognition that they are likely to have a long-term impact on resources. There is a need for continuity in staffing, and that can be achieved by at least being able to specify a minimum period of dedication of full-time work. When a team is adequately established it will need to provide the usual range of services and will also need to assess, monitor and define the task.
In addition to the social work teams, the county council funded real community agencies and set up a community development project to help in the aftermath of the floods and to deal with the problems that I have outlined. Some


of the funding comes from an urban aid submission. Urban aid comes from a fund set up to deal with all the other problems facing Clwyd, and if there are no additional funds, the whole Clwyd area will suffer.
In the last couple of years, the county has had to deal with unforeseen emergencies. It has had an outbreak of anthrax, heather and grass fires have been caused by the drought, there was a landslip at Trevor in my constituency, and now there has been flooding on the north Wales coast. The total cost of those emergencies was estimated at £4.4 million. The county council as not seen a penny of the much vaunted Bellwin money, so the increase from 75 to 95 per cent. does not mean a thing, because 95 per cent. of nothing is still nothing. The county council threshold is £861,000, but it incurred about £450,000 of eligible expenditure and therefore receives nothing.
Perhaps the Minister will deal with the Bellwin scheme in his winding-up speech. He should consider changing not the percentage but the eligible expenditure. He could consider a lower threshold to allow aggregation of the emergency expenditure on the anthrax outbreak at Singret farm and on the other problems that I have mentioned. He could extend the deadline and allow normal wage costs and not just overtime costs. He should allow normally insurable expenditure, permit additional credit approval, and fully reimburse the cost of the police and armed forces. Such measures would genuinely reimburse the county in dealing with its problems.
Westminster city council was given £6 million for flood defences and used about £200,000 of it. The rest was used to reduce poll tax bills. However, when there were floods in Towyn, no money was given to the county council.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): All hon. Members will agree that the debate has been valuable. Naturally, we have concentrated on the north Wales coast, but we welcomed the contributions from our English colleagues—especially my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who clearly have problems in their constituencies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on securing a visit by our noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington, who I am sure put heart into many of his constituents. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will know that questions about floods and coastal defences in England are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Where the problems relate to revenue support grant payments, they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall certainly draw to their attention what my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Waveney have said.
We all fully appreciate and understand the continuing problems still faced by many of the residents of Towyn and the surrounding area so long after the dreadful floods of February and March. As many hon. Members have said, mercifully, no lives were lost. The Government are determined to ensure that as much as possible is done to help the people who suffered and to set matters right in that area.
From the start, Welsh Office Ministers have taken a close interest in the situation. I flew to the area at the height of the disaster on Tuesday 27 February, and that in itself was a hair-raising experience. The traumatic scenes

and the experiences endured by the people were unforgettable. The former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) also visited the area. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State has visited Towyn again to see for himself the problems that remain to be overcome.
A primary task must be to restore confidence in the area both for residents and visitors, and to build a situation in which a repetition of those dreadful events can be avoided. We are working towards that. I hope that we can create an effective partnership with the local authorities to tackle what must be done.
I take this opportunity, as others have done, to give credit to those who have worked so hard in the area to alleviate the worst of the immediate problems. I have in mind staff at the district and county councils who worked long and hard to provide temporary accommodation for those who were evacuated, to provide counselling services and to meet many other needs of the flood victims.
I must also mention the invaluable work not only of the emergency services and the armed forces but also of the voluntary bodies which are, among others, the citizens advice bureau, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the girl guides and the housing associations, which were rightly praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Without them, many of the needs of the area could not have been met. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, who has stoically borne this disaster along with his constituents, that our main concern throughout has been to ensure that, as soon as possible everyone has a permanent roof over his head, preferably in his own home.
Many residents had inadequate or no insurance cover on their homes and that placed many people in difficulty about meeting the cost of repairs. The new renovation grants scheme, which came into effect on 1 July, will be of great value in helping such people.
The new, more objective, standard of fitness for habitation that we introduced on 1 April should ensure that all properties have the basic amenities and do not suffer from major physical or structural problems that would render them unfit. That is very much the case with many homes in the Towyn area of north Wales. Mandatory grant is now available for unfit houses to be brought up to the new standard. The new minor works grant, introduced on 1 April, will be of particular help to elderly people, whose homes may need only a small amount of work. Provided that those people are in receipt of income-related benefit, they will receive assistance with the full cost of essential repairs, up to a maximum of £1,000.
We are anxious that our new grant system should target resources on those who are least able to afford to repair or improve their homes. Subject to the test of resources, those on limited means could receive assistance up to the full cost of the works with up to 100 per cent. grant. We are anxious that the new system should have maximum impact in Wales generally, and that any assistance is not. frustrated by a lack of resources. Therefore, we shall ensure that additional capital resources are made available, if necessary, in this financial year.
With regard to the disaster, a report was commissioned by the Welsh Office from Hydraulics Research Ltd. to examine the design standards required for coastal


defences, a version of which was made available to the Select Committee. The report is being published in its entirety this week.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), to whom we are all indebted as Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to that report and, obliquely, to its conclusion. The report states that, although the wave height, surge and astronomical tide levels were each high, they were not exceptional in their own right. The damage was due to a freak combination of all three factors at the same time.
The calculations and conclusions have been drawn together to give recommended values of water level and offshore wave conditions for use in the design of coastal defences on the north Wales coast. The results of the study are already in use by Hydraulics Research Ltd., which is undertaking testing on behalf of British Rail of the proposed upgraded sea defences for Towyn.
Extensive reference has been made to the Select Committee's report that was published only today. As I implied earlier, the Government will need time to consider the report's recommendations and will need to consider the comments of other organisations, such as local authorities and the National Rivers Authority, to which recommendations are also addressed. Therefore, I cannot give a definitive response to the recommendations—the Government's full response must come later—but I can make some comments.
Two of the Committee's recommendations—paragraph 28 on evacuation procedures and paragraph 61 on advice on insurance—are primarily for local authorities to consider, and we must await their views. The recommendation in paragraph 24—on the provision of a tidal gauge in north Wales—is already under active consideration, as my Department stated in paragraph 15 of its second memorandum of evidence. I am sure that those involved will take note of the Committee's views.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked me about the estimate of costs. The estimated cost of selecting a suitable site, and designing and installing a tide gauge, would be about £40,000 to £45,000.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister of State give an absolute commitment that such a gauge will be installed?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have said that it is under active consideration. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to go further than that, and I cannot possibly do so.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The recommendation in paragraph 39 about provision of design standards will need careful consideration. As the Committee was told in paragraphs 10 and 11 of my Department's second memorandum, advice is already disseminated to those with responsibility for sea defence works. We shall need to consider whether any changes in the present arrangements are necessary or practicable. The recommendation in paragraph 42 that certain maintenance work be eligible for grant is also under consideration by my Department, as paragraph 20 of our second memorandum of evidence stated. I assure the House that we shall take careful note of the Committee's views in coming to a decision.
The recommendation in paragraph 59, which has arisen during this debate, relates to planning advice. The issue of where new development is permitted in the aftermath of the floods is one which, in the first instance, the local planning authorities must address. Advice to planning authorities on liaison with those authorities responsible for land drainage is contained in Welsh Office circular 15/82, which asks planning authorities to bear in mind the vulnerability of any development in an area that is protected from the danger of flooding, should that protection be breached. In the light of the floods in north Wales and elsewhere, we are, as the Committee knows, considering whether it is desirable to re-issue the advice in the circular. We shall take the Committee's recommendation into account.
An alteration, reviewing the Clwyd structure plan, was submitted to the Welsh Office earlier this year. In considering that alteration for approval, officials will consider, with council officers, the need for any modifications to the submitted plan and will also discuss the issue of an early review.

Mr. Raffan: While I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot possibly give a definitive Welsh Office response to the Select Committee report today, will he say when he expects the Welsh Office to be able to do so? Other Select Committee members present in the Chamber will agree that we have had unfortunate experiences with Government responses in the past. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) nodding in agreement with that. There have been far too long delays, and we need a full response promptly.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I appreciate the urgency of the response, but I have already said that there are other organisations involved with which we must consult. We shall produce our response as soon as possible, but I am sure that the House will agree that hon. Members require a proper response from the Government. That is why today, within hours of the document's publication, I can give only limited responses.
The issue of a moratorium on development in the district is primarily a matter for the local planning authority.

Mr. Barry Jones: As the Minister of State knows that hon. Members from both sides are asking for speedy decisions from him and the Government, would he like to debate the report at greater length in the Welsh Grand Committee before the House rises?

Sir Wyn Roberts: We have already had a fairly extensive debate on the report today. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a matter for further consideration, possibly through the usual channels. Obviously, that idea has just occurred to the hon. Gentleman. Two debates on this subject within one month would be excessive. The House might wish to consider whether it would prefer to await the Government's response, which we shall produce as soon as possible, when there might be a better opportunity for debate. We are all talking off the top of our heads in relation to any future debates. The timing of such debates is not exactly a matter for decision across these Benches.
The recommendation in paragraph 60 proposes changes in the building regulations for properties in districts liable to flooding. All I can say at present is that we shall consider that recommendation.
The first recommendation in paragraph 50 of the Committee's report is that the various Acts relating to coastal defence and coast protection be consolidated into a single Act. That was strongly endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). Again, all I can say is that we shall consider the Committee's recommendations, but I am sure that the House will appreciate what is involved.
The four recommendations in paragraphs 23, 26, 27 and the second part of paragraph 50 are all related, in that their aim is to improve the standard and co-ordination of flood warnings both in north Wales and elsewhere. They raise a number of issues and will involve Government, local authorities, the NRA and others in consideration of them. In the aftermath of the disaster, it is important that we all try to learn lessons for the future. The Committee's analysis and recommendations have highlighted some important points that we need to consider carefully.
There are two interrelated warning systems operating on the west coast of England and Wales—the Meteorological Office met flood warning and the Neptune warning, which is operated by the NRA north western region. As I implied during an intervention, the problem with the Neptune system is that the accuracy of prediction cannot yet be relied upon and authorities are loathe to issue public warnings on the basis of it as there would be too many false alarms. Although the prediction of the surge in Liverpool bay on 26 February was, in the words of the Proudman oceanographic laboratory, "surprisingly accurate", the same cannot be said for many of the other predictions or, indeed, for that in the Severn estuary on the same day.
However—this is good news for the Committee and for advocates of the Neptune system—it is anticipated that, with the installation this year of a new computer at the Meterological Office giving greater resolution of weather conditions, and the establishment of additional tide gauges on the Welsh coast, sea flood warnings can be improved. I assure the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that that tide gauge is very much on the cards.
Although at this stage I cannot be precise on the final level of Government assistance to local authorities and others in the flood-affected areas of north Wales, I estimate that it is likely to total almost £4 million, and it could exceed that figure. That is a substantial contribution to the needs of the area, which will not only help greatly in getting things back to normal, but will also relieve the burden on Colwyn borough council, which bore the brunt of the floods, and its community charge payers.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my hon. Friend give a rough estimate of the additional burden that next year might fall on the community charge payers of Colwyn borough council?

Sir Wyn Roberts: It would be premature to make any such estimate.
At the outset, the Government made a contribution of £150,000 to the appeal funds set up by the mayors of Colwyn, Rhuddlan and Delyn. It is the first time that such a contribution has been made when there has been no loss of life. It shows the seriousness with which the

Government viewed the position. The European Community also made a contribution of £111,500 to the funds. The appeal funds were not intended to be the main source of assistance to the flood-affected areas, and have never been thought of as such. The funds, and the use to which they are put, are the responsibility of the trustees.
The Department of Social Security has made payments of some £300,000 in community care grants to flood victims. Ministers at the Department of Social Security have already given careful consideration to whether to extend the criteria for the payment of community care grants. However, to relax the existing criteria would be to go against the basic principle of targeting resources on those most in need.
The Government's contribution has not ended there—grants totalling at least a further £1.5 million are likely to be paid out under the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance to local authorities. In the exceptional circumstances of the north Wales floods, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that an enhanced rate of grant will be paid towards eligible expenditure above a threshold on costs borne by authorities in responding to the emergency.
The grant rate will be 95 per cent. on eligible expenditure incurred after 1 April, and the scheme will apply to expenditure incurred up to 31 July—three months longer than would usually be the case. He remains prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any case which is put to him to extend the time scale still further. That will be of some consolation to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister comment on the cost-benefit analysis? Is he prepared to consider the way in which benefit is computed to try to maximise the possibility of preventing future problems?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The Government will thus be paying for most of the cost of emergency repairs to the sea defences and, even more significantly in this context, the costs of housing the homeless and restoring the position in the devastated area as quickly as possible. That demonstrates the flexibility of the Government's response to such disasters.
I know that Clwyd county council is concerned that, to date, it has received no assistance under the Bellwin arrangements, because eligible expenditure has not yet reached the threshold. I understand that it is currently preparing a submission that looks for the relaxation of the Bellwin rules to cover its particular problems. When that submission is received, it will be carefully and sympathetically considered.
Colwyn borough council, which bore the brunt of the disaster, has estimated that its expenditure will eventually total about £1.25 million. Of that, more than £1 million will be met by Bellwin grant. Substantial costs have also been incurred by other coastal authorities, and they too will receive Bellwin grant where the conditions of the scheme are met.
My right hon. Friend has already presented cheques totalling over £600,000 to Colwyn and Rhuddlan borough councils on the basis of interim claims, and we have asked all councils to let us have estimates of their total expenditure incurred in dealing with the emergency. Several have now done so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, British Rail has confirmed that it will be taking responsibility for the upgrading of sea defences at Towyn and Pensarn at a cost of £8 million to £10 million. The works will take until autumn 1992 to complete. To protect the area over the two winters until the permanent works are completed, interim works are proposed, to be completed by October this year. The rock used for the interim works will be eventually incorporated into the permanent works, and the costs of the interim works are therefore included in the cost of the permanent works.
The cost to British Rail of the emergency sealing of the breach at Towyn is understood to have been about £1 million, and the cost of other works to protect their lines in Wales is estimated at a further £4 million.
With regard to coast protection works, about £18 million has been spent in the past ten years, attracting grant of over £12.5 million. Notable schemes within that programme are the offshore breakwater at Rhos on Sea, the breakwaters at nearby Penrhyn bay in my constituency, and the extensive works at Prestatyn, which are about half completed. Those works undoubtedly saved the north Wales coastline from a much more extensive disaster than the one we suffered.
I gave full details of annual expenditure and schemes assisted in Wales in response to a question by the hon. Member for Caernarfon published in Hansard of 24 January 1990. The rate of grant can be as much as 70 per cent. of eligible costs. Grant provisions for this financial year are in the region of £3.5 million, which is considerably more than at any time previously. I hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has heard that answer to one of the points that he raised. Provision for grant is already secured for the next three years at an equivalent level to this year. That provision will cover a major project recently commenced at Colwyn Bay promenade, and completion of works at Prestatyn. Major schemes are also anticipated at Llandudno and Llanelli, in addition to many smaller schemes.

Mr. Raffan: As regards coast protection work at Prestatyn, will my hon. Friend consider compressing the three-year programme into two years, as I suggested? Also, will he address my point about the Nova complex, as it will be a heavy burden on Rhuddlan borough council if it has to find £200,000 without permission to spend above its capital allocation?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall carefully consider both the issues that the hon. Member mentioned. We have considerable sympathy with Rhuddlan because of the devastation of the Nova complex. Obviously, we would wish to hasten coastal protection work if at all possible.
During the past ten years, nearly £3.5 million has been spent by the National Rivers Authority and its

predecessors on new and improved sea defence works in Wales to protect against flooding, and more than £2 million has been paid in Government grants. I understand that the National Rivers Authority and other relevant authorities propose significant work in the coming years. With this in mind, the NRA has just embarked on a full survey of sea defences in Wales, as I mentioned earlier.
A number of hon. Members have advocated a national body to play a supervisory role, but I can assure them that the proposal was considered in 1985, and again in 1989 and local authorities, whose knowledge is vital, were totally opposed to setting up such a body. Nevertheless, the National Rivers Authority already has a general supervisory role over all matters relating to flood defence, and it undertakes sea defence works in its own right. It is also consulted on all coast protection schemes and any objections that it, or any other body, has are referred to the Secretary of State. So there is a mechanism whereby the NRA can positively influence coastal defence strategy. The Government's view is that the present system can work well, if it is sensibly applied, and therefore no major changes are envisaged.

Mr. Wardell: In the three minutes that I have left to me, I must say that I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to congratulate the Minister on his birthday today. We meet for the second time today, as earlier we were both in Committee on the Caldey Island Bill. The Minister's assurances that there would be no retrospective payment of community charge for the good people of Caldey was equalled by the comments that he just made and by his optimistic tone when he described what we expect the Government to do in response to the report.
I do not mind too much if the Government spend a little time responding to our report, provided that they implement most of our recommendations in that period so that they will be able to say in their report that they have already accomplished our recommendations.
I do not mind if the Government claim the credit. The important thing is that the many lessons of the experience be learned. I shall not list the lessons now, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, the way forward is to ensure that legislation is introduced to tidy up existing laws, to give the NRA a leading role in promoting coastal protection schemes and to make financing simpler. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives sums up our concerns, and I hope that the Government will consider them.
It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the debate was concluded, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings were deferred pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

CLASS VIII, VOTE 4

[Relevant document: Third Report from the Environment Committee of Session 1989–90 on the Department of the Environment's Main Estimates 1990–91 ( House of Commons Paper No. 373 ).]

Gipsy Sites

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,785,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on road infrastructure required for the development of new towns, gypsy sites, smoke control, planning redevelopment and other environmental services, on other water supply, conservation and sewerage services, and on town and country planning (including compensation).—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the Department of the Environment's main estimates for 1990–1991, with special reference to vote 4, Bl. It would be appropriate to record our thanks to Mr. Richard Dudding and Mr. John Adams at the Department of the Environment for their helpful co-operation, enabling the Committee to reach the conclusions of its report, and for their full anwers to the sometimes forceful questions that were put to them during our deliberations. I should also like to record my appreciation of the leadership of our Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who brings us great experience and considerable enthusiasm and who helps us do an important job.
I am a great believer in the work that Select Committees do and in bringing their reports to the House. We appreciate the opportunity to debate a report hot off the press.
Select Committee do an enormous variety of work and cover detailed as well as broad subjects. I cannot help contrasting our previous debate with this one. A few moments ago we were debating the consequences of what my insurance people would call an act of God earlier this year. Now we are considering the consequences of an Act of Parliament passed more than 20 years ago. The consequences are still with us: that is the nub of the Select Committee's report and recommendations.
We recognise the difficult problems posed by itinerants. There are different points of view. I am sure that the viewpoint of Lord Avebury, who, as Eric Lubbock, steered the legislation through Parliament, would be different from my own. As a constituency Member of Parliament who, in common with some of my hon. Friends, has had problems with itinerants, I have received many representations from constituents about a variety of related issues.
Above all there is the problem of visual pollution. To some people gipsies may be historic Romany folk with brightly painted caravans towed by horses but those of us who have experienced the problem in recent years know that it has more to do with tumbledown caravans and beaten-up vehicles and piles of scrap and rubbish, and that those people often occupy inappropriate sites that are extremely visible to the general public.
There is also a problem associated with the vandalism of large areas of woodland to provide fuel for fires. Theft often occurs as well. A farmer in my constituency found after gipsies had camped on land adjacent to his farm that the water supply for his cattle was regularly used by the itinerants. He had to pay a huge bill and he could not reclaim the money from anyone.
My personal interest in the matter goes back a long way. I served on Chiltern district council in Buckinghamshire until I became a Member of the House. We spent long hours debating the location of official sites before we received designations. The galling aspect was that no sooner had the official sites been built and opened than they were vandalised by the very people who were supposed to benefit from them. At that time a pitch cost about £10,000; no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will bring us up to date on how much one would cost now.
The Select Committee has considered the matter on several occasions. The first time I remember it doing so was in 1984–85, soon after I joined the Committee, and the problem has recurred almost every year since then. This time we have come up with some specific recommendations, which I shall attempt to summarise.
It is time to set a realistic timetable for site provision, with the threat of much more vigorous use of the Secretary of State's powers of direction against laggard authorities. Foremost among the reasons for his recommendation was the slow provision of official pitches. Hon. Members may be interested to hear some statistics. There were 211 more caravans on authorised sites in July 1989 than in July 1988, and 171 new pitches became available on local authority sites during the financial year 1989–90. That represents a decline from the 250 new pitches in the calendar year 1987 and no improvement on the 200 to 300 annual increases reported by the Department of the Environment for 1982 to 1987. The Committee estimates that, at the present rate of new provision, it would take 25 years to solve the problem.
The Secretary of State has only twice used his powers of direction under section 9 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In November 1988 he directed Hertfordshire county council to make provision for sites for 110 caravans. It is no coincidence that I am the Member for Hertfordshire, West, because I had to bully successive Ministers at the Department over that matter before any action was forthcoming. In June 1989, Surrey county council was directed to provide for 180 caravans. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Committee recommended much more vigorous use of that power. The numbers involved are immense and there seems to be little progress.
The number of caravans on unauthorised sites continues to grow. Figures supplied by the Department in 1985 showed a decline in numbers from 4,245 in January 1980 to an estimated 3,472 in January 1985. In answer to a parliamentary question on 6 February 1987—at column 856 in Hansard—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) identified about 3,000; but last year the DOE reported the proportion of caravans on unauthorised sites as virtually unchanged at about 34 per cent., despite the creation of about 250 new pitches, as more gipsies than usual were being recorded. Most worrying of all, this year's public expenditure White Paper reports the proportion on unauthorised sites at 35 per cent., which is an increase. That makes a total of 4,500 caravans, so the solution to the problem seems to be receding.
The Committee first expressed its worry about the legislation in its report of the 1984–85 Session, when we recommended that the Department should conduct a review of policy on gipsy sites. It was carried out by Professor Wibberley, professor of countryside planning in the university of London. He made several recommendations, the first of which a more specific definition of gipsies for the purpose of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, based on employment and life style, with the intention of excluding social drop-outs.
In response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that he defined gipsies in terms of a nomadic habit of life—which seems a rather circular argument. In recent years not just itinerants, as they were called in the past, but many of what my constituents call diddikois seem to have joined this group; they are people from all sorts of background. There has certainly been an influx of peace people from various camps around the country. That is why the problem is growing.
The difficulty is not confined to unauthorised sites on land. As a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, I am conscious of the fact that exactly the same phenomenon is occurring on the water, in the shape of illegal moorings. The problem has more to do with the break-up of some parts of society and with general problems of homelessness than with genuine Romany folk. Professor Wibberley's recommendation is still relevant and I hope that the Department will again consider tightening the legislation's definition.
The professor also recommended a review of designated areas to ensure that the designation procedure works more fairly and efficiently. He recommended better and more frequent counts of gipsy families and measures to reduce resident hostility towards gipsies' sites, including speeding up planning decisions and facilitating discussions between gipsies and residents. Finally, he recommended encouraging gipsy groups to act as site operators, and quicker and more generous provision of capital grants for sites. Incidentally, I must commend the Department's improvement of the grant regime. I hope that that will encourage more local authorities to provide sites. As Mr. Dudding explained when giving evidence:
there are other authorities which would … even if they had the £5 notes put in front of their eyes, be reluctant".
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will touch on that aspect if he catches the Chair's eye—it is a problem that has been especially apparent in Haringey.
The real difficulty is that the goalposts are continually moving. Even local authorities that are motivated to try to achieve designation find that they run into increasing difficulties of litigation. As soon as a local authority applies for designation on the basis of the number of itinerants who are, in the terms of the Act, resorting to the area, there is another influx of people. That means that the designation order falls because there is no relation between the number of official pitches and the number of the gipsies in the area.
It is little wonder that some local authorities, faced with all the political problems of trying to set up sites against the will of local residents, give up, especially when confronted by vociferous gipsy support groups with access to legal assistance.
How does one define who resorts to an area? Is it someone who has come to an area for many years, or is it someone who has come to the area only recently? There seems to be no way to define it. I have always taken the view that we do not need more direction from the Department of the Environment, or a different grant regime. We need a reframing of the legislation so that, with fairer definitions, local authorities can get on with the job of providing sites for the genuine traveller and ensuring that the police move on those who are not genuine travellers.
I am encouraged by the Department's response to a question that I put to it. Mr. Dudding said:
I think the Secretary of State's words in reply to the Committee last year were open to change; they were not ruling them out. And I think that is somehting that we shall continue to think about and I am sure that Ministers will be interested to read the views of the Committee in their Report because that is a source of advice to them by which, as you know, they have been influenced in the past.
There is plenty of material for reconsideration.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more up-to-date information. The Department has commissioned a study to identify good practice among local authorities in achieving site provision. It has also commissioned another study to establish the accuracy of the half-yearly counts of gipsies. I understand that the results would be made available in June 1990. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has them with him and that he will be able to enlighten the House.
It has taken virtually the whole time that I have been a Member of Parliament for my local authority to be granted designation after its initial application. During that period, local residents, particularly in the parishes of Wigginton and Tring Rural, but also in Tring, became increasingly frustrated by what they believed to be the Department of the Environment's inability to act in such a way as to protect them from all the environmental problems that I described earlier. I had to explain to them many times that I believed that the cause of the problem was the imprecise nature of the legislation that had been piloted through the House. That is not surprising, since it was a Liberal measure. Nevertheless, a Conservative Government ought to do something about it.
I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the pressing needs of communities throughout the country who wish to be rid of those problems. Genuine travellers ought to be provided with a decent life style and somewhere to live so that education can be provided for their children, but the law needs to be reformed to deal with the remainder.

Mr. Max Madden: I thank the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for introducing the debate. I also thank the Select Committee on the Environment for its third report. I intend to confine my remarks to that part of the report which deals with gipsy sites and travellers. As the area represented by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West has been designated, I was interested in what he had to say about the problem. He drew attention to the many difficulties that flow from designation. Bradford was designated by the Minister earlier this year.
Many of those who support designation give the public the impression that it is a magic wand solution to all the difficulties caused by travellers. There is therefore


considerable public resentment and cynicism when the problems continue after designation. The Government will continue to face difficulties if they grant designation, but the problems remain unsolved.
The report states that 112 authorities have been designated under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. They include Doncaster and Bradford. Another 11 applications for designation are being considered by the Department. Bradford continues to face problems. Designation was granted by the Minister days before the local elections, but I should be the last to suggest any connection between his decision and the elections looming on 3 May. His letter provided background information to the granting of designation, stating that the grounds for designation were that it would not be expedient for the then Conservative-controlled Bradford council to make additional permanent provision in Bradford.
Like many other people in Bradford, I thought that that was an extraordinary decision. We have tussled with this problem for many years. We met a Minister from the Department of the Environment two or three years ago, when it was made clear to us that, unless Bradford provided a third permanent site for travellers, designation would not be granted. A third permanent site has not been provided and the two permanent sites in Bradford have not been improved. Nevertheless, the Minister granted designation.
The new Labour administration in Bradford has stated that it will not instruct its officers to implement designation. The new administration wants to monitor the position before taking action. It is anxious to find out whether neighbouring authorities, including Calderdale, Kirklees and Craven, have provided any permanent sites before it decides to implement the designation orders.
The traveller merry-go-round that we have witnessed in Bradford For many years continues. Travellers have resorted—to use the official jargon of the Act—to Bradford for well over a century. Environment Ministers have accepted for many years that two permanent sites offer totally insufficient permanent provision for the caravans of travellers who come regularly to Bradford. They accept that a third site is needed, but it has not been provided. My local newspaper, The Telegraph and Argus, reported recently on the eviction of travellers from unofficial sites and on their moving to other unofficial sites. Council officers are considering applying for yet more eviction orders. A council official is quoted as saying that
it was a problem finding sites that met the needs of the travellers. Shortage of sites for gipsies was a problem because the inner city Mary street site was full.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. South (Mr. Cryer) is in the Chamber. He and I visited the Mary street site last summer. At the same time we visited the official site at Esholt. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me that we were very dissatisfied with the standard of the facilities that are provided there. The Esholt street site is adjacent to a rifle range. We were shown bullet cartridges that had ricocheted over an earth embankment behind the rifle range. The drainage and the washing facilities at the site are totally unsatisfactory. It is no wonder that the travellers are extremely reluctant to use that remote site, which is well away from the shops and schools. The Mary street site was also in a shocking condition. The showers and washing facilities had been vandalised and many of the travellers we met complained about the standard of facilities there.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vandalism that he mentioned had not been carried out by the travellers and that one of the difficulties was that on occasions there was a degree of hostility and youths would stone the caravans and vandalise the toilet blocks at the site? The toilet blocks had been in need of repairs for many months and the travellers were making the best of what was patently a bad job.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Minister granted designation, he said in his background note that Bradford council was to spend money on improving the Mary street and Esholt street sites. I have made inquiries but I cannot ascertain whether there have been any improvements at those sites. I was amazed that the Minister stated in his note and in correspondence with me that his officials had found the facilities and the general conditions at both sites reasonable. He and his officials seem alone in that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and others who are interested and concerned are extremely disassatisfied with the standard of the facilities at both sites. We also remain firmly of the view that a third permanent site must be provided in Bradford.
The views of the gipsy spokesperson, Ann Purcell, were reported in the Telegraph and Argus:
she expected her family would be moved on again from New Lane by the council. But she believed it would be cheaper for the council to provide them with a proper site instead of chasing them around the city. Council officials offered the family space at official site at Esholt but Mrs. Purcell said: `It's miles away from anywhere, especially the school and there are no shops within walking distance.' … She said there is not enough room to accommodate travellers at two official sites in the Bradford district and condemned the scrapping of a plan three years ago to turn some derelict land at Listerhills into another gipsy site.".
The Minister should know that the previous Conservative administration came to power partly clue to the hysteria that had been whipped up deliberately by the Conservative party in Bradford over travellers and gipsies. During that campaign, leading Conservatives sought to gain cheap party political support on the back of a promise that designation would resolve all the problems and that the traveller problem could be wholly removed only if designation were granted. Designation has been granted and the problems continue.
I hope that the Minister will say how much money that previous Tory administration told him it had committed to spending on improving the Esholt street and Mary street sites. When he granted designation, his background note suggested that the Conservative administration in Bradford was also committed to providing further private sites in Bradford. I have been unable to get any information about the location of those private sites. As the Minister must have been given some information by the previous Conservative administration in Bradford about where those private sites were likely to be situated, I should like to know where they are and what progress is being made.

Mr. Cryer: I should be interested to know what encouragement the Minister is giving neighbouring authorities to provide sites. I understand that Craven, Kirklees and Calderdale local authorities do not provide one alternative site. No doubt the Government are


anxiously providing all possible assistance in the way of advice and grant aid to encourage those authorities to play their part.

Mr. Madden: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. What information has the Minister received from Calderdale, Kirklees and Craven about their current efforts to identify suitable permanent sites? It would be idle and politically dishonest for the Minister to pretend that designation without neighbouring authorities offering permanent sites, improvements to the existing two sites, the provision of a third permanent site, more private sites, and a general overall improvement in Bradford, would provide any long-term satisfactory solution to the difficulties which have arisen for many years and which will continue unless the Government take decisive action.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West made the case for my last point. The parent legislation is more than 20 years old and needs to be reformed to meet current circumstances and the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. The Committee says that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 25 years to accommodate those known travellers who desire proper permanent sites with proper facilities. I hope that the Minister will not be satisfied with that rate of progress.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West made the case for regional planning. It is quite wrong to leave individual district authorities to reach piecemeal solutions on the back of a variety of local circumstances. Surely the only way in which we can make progress and meet the demands of travellers and the requirements of settled residents is through a national gipsy traveller programme and regional programmes to ensure that in West Yorkshire, for example, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Wakefield and other authorities make planned and systematic provision to alleviate the problems caused to travellers and local residents.
If the Minister rejects that suggestion, in Bradford and other places, either the merry-go-round will continue and designation will prove wholly unsuitable to deal with the problems, or police and council officials will become involved in potentially dangerous confrontations between travellers and groups of local residents, with caravans being towed to the borders of authority districts and travellers seeking unofficial sites in places such as Calderdale and Kirklees where there is no official provision or returning to Bradford to occupy unofficial and illegal sites.
The Minister can easily achieve a recipe for anarchy and dangerous community unrest and conflict by presiding over the shambolic mess that this policy has caused, but I hope that he will be able to announce to the House—I sense that there is concern among hon. Members on both sides because this is not a party-political issue but one of good local government and community relations—new policy initiatives to satisfy our constituents and travellers about the future.
It is interesting to note the views of traveller children. A report in the Telegraph and Argus, headlined
We want to learn, plead the gipsy children",
states:
The youngsters say that they want to be taught and are fed up of being moved off one site after another. 'We were born in Bradford and we want to have an education here,' said 12-year-old Mary Doran. 'It's not fair that we have to

keep on moving. We would like a permanent site so we can stay in one place and go to school. The way we are going we won't even get half an education.' Margaret Purcell, 12, said `We want to be taught but we don't even know if we'll be in school on Monday.' Mary and Margaret and their sisters, 11-year-olds Eileen and Kathleen, have been going to St. William's Roman Catholic First School, in Young Street, Bradford, for the past five months. 'We really enjoy it there, but some days we have to miss school because of all this moving,' said Mary. Before that, the children went to St. Patrick's RC First School in Wood Street, Manningham. The gipsies were served with an eviction order by Bradford Council to leave the land at Lower Rushton Road, in Thornbury. About eight caravans are now parked on an area of grassland between blocks of council flats on New Lane. Residents have complained to the council about the noise of the generators being used by the gipsy families. Richard Hoyle, 24 of Oban House said: 'My wife's complained to the council to get the generators turned down. We've got two young children and the noise at 4 am doesn't help.' Bradford Council has said shortage of sites for gipsies was a problem because the inner city Mary Street site was full. A spokesman said the council would be seeking another court order to move the gipsies on again.
So the merry-go-round goes on. The Minister told me and the people of Bradford in April when he granted designation that these problems would be resolved. They are not resolved and are unlikely to be, but I hope very much that when he replies to the debate he will be able to announce new policy initiatives that will give some hope to my constituents and to travellers that the merry-go-round in Bradford will end, that there will be a third permanent site, that improvements will be made to the Mary street and Esholt street sites, that there will be further private sites and that he will issue directions to Kirklees, Calderdale and Craven about making satisfactory progress towards permanent site provision in their local authority areas.
I hope that the Minister will begin to recognise that a national policy is necessary and a regional strategy vital if we are to reduce the problems that I am sure other hon. Members will rehearse today.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the way in which he introduced the Environment Select Committee's report. The moderate and balanced way in which he did so was in the best of the traditions of the Committee. I am afraid that I cannot be as moderate or follow the traditions of my Committee.
My constituency has been subject to a plague of gipsies for about seven years. I call them gipsies, but they are not true Romanies. Possibly some of them are tinkers. They may be itinerant scrap metal merchants, but mostly they seem to be motorised squatters. That is probably the best term that I can use.
When officials of the Department of the Environment were giving evidence to my Committee, we asked them to give the definition of a gipsy under the terms of the legislation. Some years ago, in his report, Professor Wibberley criticised the fact that there was no hard and fast definition by which gipsies and people who were subject to the legislation could be readily identified. The officials' reply was, "People who live a nomadic way of life." I asked, "Does a nomadic way of life involve moving from one illegal site within the London borough of Haringey to another?" There was a shrug of the shoulders


and the answer, "Perhaps that is nomadic." That is not an adequate answer and is not a proper way for a Department to address its mind to a very serious social problem.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) mentioned the tensions when ordinary residents are faced with such a sudden visitation. In conscience, we cannot allow that to continue, for the sake of either the families who willingly accept or are forced into that way of life or the local communities who suddenly find them in their midst.
I have experienced the problem for several years. I have brought with me several files on the problems that I have had since the most recent general election. Since 1987, I have had within my constituency illegal squatting and trespassing by so-called gipsies at Alexandra palace, Wood Green common, Carlton lodge in Hornsey, Durnsford road lido, King's road car park in Wood Green, Pelham road in Wood Green, Lymington avenue in Wood Green, Russell avenue in Wood Green and Middle lane and Lightfoot road, Hornsey.
They may be the same gipsies who move from site to site or others who come and go. Nobody has been able to identify them except perhaps the travellers liaison officer, appointed by the London borough of Haringey, who directs them from site to site when the heat gets too hot on a site. It is of some interest that the council, which is reluctant to use its powers to remove trespassers from its property, seems to anticipate travellers moving from one site to another, because overnight a water stand pipe and portaloos suddenly appear, and lo and behold they remain there for several months.
As time is short, I do not want to go through the files for each site to show the problems that these visitations create. There is a pattern of filth, of danger to public health and hygiene, of rubble, of litter, of disorder, of children running wild, of a spate of housebreaking and of excrement where one would not expect to find it. One cannot wonder that, as a consequence, the local residents, who are ordinary, decent people, despair because nobody seems to be ready to help them to deal with the problem.
When these people first appear on a site, reference is made to the local police, who are asked whether they will exercise their powers under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. The police will not do so and they say that the Act is irrelevant to the problem. They say in their defence, "The Act gives us power of arrest where there is a trespass and those convicted are dealt with by the magistrates, but we have no power under the Act to remove the caravans. If we arrest somebody, we leave behind his wife and children, and who looks after them? When the man in released by the magistrates and returns to the site, what do we do? Do we arrest him for a continuing offence if he refuses to go?" The only answer to that problem must be for the police to have the power—and the willingness to use that power—to remove caravans when they are trespassing on other people's or public property, although that may seem somewhat draconian.
I said that I would not read through all my files and that I would merely give the House an idea of the problems. However, I want to read one letter to the House, which was written to me in March last year. The letter says:
My mother and father are both retired. They live in a very pleasant council flat in Carlton Lodge, Lancaster Road, N4. They have been honest, hardworking people all their lives. Now, at a time when they should be enjoying themselves, their lives are being made miserable.

My father suffers from a bad heart and severe arthritis and his health is getting worse. The reason for this is outside his window. There are ten to twelve gipsy caravans and a number of trucks that have been picking up builders' rubbish and dumping it in the street. The gipsies have been living there for over three months now. The local milkman has stopped delivering milk and supplies to the residents in the flats as goods were being stolen from his van.
I went to visit my parents today because it was my mother's birthday and I just could not believe my eyes. The situation has become a lot worse since the last time I was there. It's obviously making life totally unpleasant for my parents and their neighbours. Apart from the obvious health hazard there must also be a potential fire hazard to the area. I believe that certain steps are being taken to remove the gipsies but if you could speed up the process I am sure it would benefit my father's health.
That seemed to be the end of the letter, but when I turned the page, I found something else written. This is what got me. The letter continued:
The enclosed letter was drafted on Tuesday evening. On Wednesday morning my father had a stroke, followed by a heart attack. He died the following Sunday, Easter Day, at 3.10 am. My mother does not want the funeral procession to start from her own home as she is so ashamed of the state of the place and worried about what might happen to her relatives' cars while they are parked outside.
I cannot say that that letter is typical. Happily, not every constituent has suffered a bereavement as a result of gipsies. However, I have heard of cases of housebreaking and of pensioners who have suddenly found their front doors broken down and youngsters rampaging through the house. The police can do nothing because the old people cannot identify the particular individual, but the community knows where those people have come from even if there is not enough evidence to point the finger at any individual. The neighbours get to know such incidents as the bereavement and when old-age pensioners have had their front doors battered in or others have had their windows broken by half bricks. Some have had excrement deposited in their back garden and others live next door to an empty house that has become a general urinal and toilet for the encampment.
What effect does my hon. Friend the Minister think that all that must have on local residents? Is that a socially desirable situation? Does he think that people will sit down under this year in year out without, at some time or other, a fuse blowing? We shall then have a far more serious problem on our hands. The police say that they cannot act because the Public Order Act is not strong enough. The local authority refuses to act and seems to be encouraging the problem.
I have asked my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take further powers to do something either when the local authority does not apply for designation—which would give it immediate powers to act—or so that a local authority can be taken to court if it does not exercise those powers once it has obtained designated status. That might answer the problems raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. The local authority may be failing in its legal duty to its residents if it does not exercise the power, which designated status has given it, to have caravans removed.
I know from conversations with my hon. Friend the Minister that if Haringey were to apply tomorrow for designated status, it would find that it fulfilled all the criteria and that it would be granted such status. However, time after time, the borough refuses to apply for


designated status, so it does not have the powers to take action. It then shuffles off the responsibility to the local police.

Mr. Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hugh Rossi: I shall not give way as we want to end this debate fairly quickly.
Yesterday, I received a telephone call from a constituent who said that, at 6 pm the day before, gipsies had settled
on the field behind Tetherdown Primary School in Woodside Avenue. The field is used by the children from the school but is owned by a charity called The Central Foundation.
That night, two caravans appeared, after the padlock had been cut. The police asked the people to leave, but they refused to do so. By the morning, there were 20 caravans and by the evening, there were 30. I have ascertained that that remains the position. A house nearby had been broken into so that water could be obtained. Children from the site are breaking into the school. The children in the primary school are terrified. Several large dogs are roaming in the field where the gipsies are now encamped. What will my hon. Friend do about that, and what advice does he ask me to give my constituents who face that problem?

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is an important debate because it is no good shying away from the fact that there is a real problem. The guitar-strumming romany of popular myth and romantic illustration does not often appear in our towns and cities—instead, problems of sanitation and noise arise. Generators are sometimes used late at night when neighbouring lorry drivers or early-morning shift workers have to get up early. Children have to go to school after being disturbed at night. Those are the problems that arise when gipsies or travellers—however one describes them, they are people—camp close to houses. Many of them make their living from scrapping metal. Some burn the covering of copper wires to extract the copper, which produces stench and smoke, and there are other intrusions.
We must face the fact that this is a difficult problem and a real source of complaint for many people. However, it is not possible to solve that problem simply by moving groups of people in their caravans from one illegal site to another, like a continuing yo-yo around an area.
Another permanent site is needed in Bradford although several smaller sites, dispersed throughout the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district would be preferable. I see no reason why areas such as Ilkley, Bingley rural district or Rombalds ward, which have large open areas, could not be used. Some of the houses in Ilkley are out of sight of the road because the drive to the front door is so long. I am sure that the people in those areas would be anxious to play their part in a community contribution to solving the problem. People in Bradford would feel that there was fairness if the problem were dispersed throughout the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district, and not simply concentrated on two or three wards in the centre of the city.
I became involved in this matter when, about four years ago, the Labour-controlled Bradford council had a perfectly proper policy which, unfortunately, was not

implemented. Bradford's policy on travellers involved entering into consultation with and gaining the consent of people living in the vicinity of the land to be allocated for a site. About 30 families were virtually tipped on to a site called Staithgate lane at Low Moor in my constituency. I believe that that was a deliberate manoeuvre by council officials—perhaps one or two councillors were involved, but that is not absolutely clear—to try to secure that land for industrial development instead of for the transport museum for which it had been allocated. I suspect that it was planned to produce in the residents the response, "Get rid of the gipsies. We don't mind what the land is used for, as long as the gipsies are not on the site."
However, that did not work. The local people held a number of angry meetings and impressed upon the local authority the fact that it was unfair that that land should be used for a gipsy site when it was designated for a transport museum. As the area already contained two potentially high-risk chemical works, the people felt that they had burdens enough. However, to demonstrate their support for the use of the land for the purpose for which it was originally designated, the local people have held three successful annual transport galas to show that they have a community spirit, that they are not prepared to wash their hands of the whole affair, and that they want the land to be used for a commercial transport museum. I should declare an interest because I am the part-owner of a Bristol Lowdekka double-deck bus which I hope at some stage will be exhibited on that site when it is a museum.
Therefore, something positive emerged from the uproar. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has pointed out, the two sites in Bradford are not in good condition. Some modernisation was started on the Mary street site, but that was halted. Virtual cliff edges were left where excavators had been used and where rubble had been piled 2 or 3 ft high. It would be very easy for children running around to break an arm or a leg or seriously injure themselves. Where it was possible—it is not easily possible in the middle of a pile of rubble—the travellers were houseproud and tidy and clearly took care of the site. There were some difficulties, which a small amount of money spent by the local authority could and should have eradicated, but that work was never done.
I hope that the Government will state that they are prepared to give additional grant aid for such work and that they will not leave it to hard-pressed local authorities such as Bradford, which have many competing priorities, to provide that money. As I have said, Bradford needs an additional site or preferably several small sites spread throughout the district. However, it should be noted that if Bradford is a designated area and the travellers cannot move on, they cannot go to Calderdale, Kirklees or Craven to find a site because there is none. During the last general election, the Conservative candidate was a Calderdale Conservative councillor. When taxed with this problem at a meeting, he said, "There is insufficient land—there is no flat land anywhere in Calderdale that is suitable for a gipsy site." That was not believed and it is not true.
Perhaps the Minister will explain today how he intends to encourage local authorities to take responsibility. Under the existing legislation, he has powers to issue a direction. I do not ask him to do so because I do not see why the bureaucratic powers of central Government should be imposed on local authorities, but my guess is


that, if central Government gave additional grant aid, over and above the grant aid to the actual sites, and held consultation meetings and gave financial encouragement, they would find more zeal forthcoming than has hitherto been shown by some local authorities, some of which are Labour-controlled and some Conservative.
Because of all the problems and strains, and because people do not want the travellers next to them—they do not mind where they go so long as it is somewhere else—it is easy to forget that these problems can be eradicated, as has happened in Leeds, which, after a great argument, now has a limited number of pitches. All local authorities need to play their part. I see no reason why the city of Bradford, virtually alone in our part of West Yorkshire, should carry the burden of providing sites for travellers.
It is easy to criticise the travellers, and people produce various reasons for doing so. People say that they have worked hard to buy their house—encouraged by the Government—that they have decorated and painted it, but they suddenly find a pile of rubble outside, noisy children running around and a great deal of confusion, dirt and doubt. Obviously, they feel concerned and, in many cases, very angry. That is why we need a number of permanent sites.
Permanent sites would also address the argument that travellers are not making any contribution to the community because they have illegal sites and do not pay any poll tax. The poll tax burden is falling heavily on people and makes them feel that disparity even more keenly. As travellers who use local authority sites have to pay rent, they contribute in that way to the community, and people feel that things are fairer, which in turn makes for better community relations.
There is a problem with their children. We must provide means for educating the children, and if they are moving about, great difficulties are bound to arise. In Sheffield, for example, there is a gipsy children's bus and a team of people going round providing education, but that represents only an attempt to solve the problem. I understand that Sheffield has about the same number, perhaps fewer, permanent caravan sites than Bradford. In other words, although that area is doing well in respect of education, in terms of sites it is making only average provision.
The children have a right to education. The fact that they are born into a nomadic way of life, however much one might criticise that, should not prevent them from being educated. They exist, and wishing the problem away will not solve it. Nor will it provide education for those youngsters. We must encourage the establishment of permanent sites so that links can be established between the schools and the children, so that the children can feel part of society rather than feeling, as many of them do—and as many of the general public feel—part of a continuing battle. If that is the attitude of the children, it will be their attitude as teenagers and will continue into adult life, which will mean more running battles between residents and travellers, the police and travellers, and local authorities and travellers, with scarcely a sympathetic spark anywhere to be seen.
In encouraging the children, we must provide nursery education and first, middle and senior schools so that such talent and ability as exists among the families may be garnered and used for the benefit of the community as a whole. As other hon. Members have said, that cannot be

achieved if there is a continuing shift from one school to another, so that teachers never build up a relationship with the children.
A teacher recently said to me, referring to travellers' children and the children of families in difficulties, "You can see them coming down the drive, you can help them, but you know that within a day or two they will be off and you are unlikely ever to see them again." As a result, alienation and separation from society is established. We must do something about that.
Although there is antagonism between travellers and the community at large, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that people generally have a measure of compassion and recognise that we must provide for the education of the children as part of our general responsibilities. Another permanent site is needed in Bradford, as well as sites in the surrounding local authorities that I have mentioned.
I wrote to a neighbouring local authority urging its leader to investigate, and start work on, the provision of a site, and I released the letter to the press. The local evening newspaper used the headline, "MP urges gipsy site." The hon. Member who represents the area, whom I had not been able to contact with the good news that I was urging the local authority to provide a gipsy site, was inundated with calls asking, "Why are you claiming that additional gipsy sites must be provided?" The hon. Member was able to point out that it was not that hon. Member who had made the comment. Even so, the hon. Member agreed with me that the local authority should be making provision for gipsies, for the reasons that I have given.
There is a genuine altruism in all of this. We do not get many votes from gipsies, because they are unlikely to be on electoral registers, although some of them are, and we are criticised if we do not take action on behalf of permanent residents confronted with illegal gipsy sites. The fact that Parliament is discussing this issue is creditable, however, because in talking about it we are bringing pressure to bear on the Government to provide more assistance so that local authorities can tackle the problem. Let us face the fact that the problem will not go away. Let us also have a mutual respect for differing ways of life as between the permanent population, who want to live in houses, who like their cities and areas and who do not wish to move, and the tiny fraction of the population who live a nomadic life. Somehow, somewhere, we must find accommodation for all concerned, for the sake of everybody.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I wish to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for the way in which he introduced the Select Committee report.
One could not but be moved by the dramatic content of the speech, which was well received, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). His remarks will be long remembered in the House.
My contribution is on behalf of the west midlands. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) correctly said that this is not a Bradford but a national matter, as has been reflected in the debate. We are discussing a national problem and we are looking forward, with differing degrees of confidence, to the Minister's response.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is here because I know that he shares


my view that this social problem—this plague, as it has been called—is as relevant in the west midlands as it is anywhere else. I should be the first to support the concept of special officers able to deal with the problems of the itinerants in that, in the long term, they may come into society, particularly from the point of view of helping the children.
Having said that, I must add that in the Himley and Kingswinford areas of my constituency I am continually, along with local councillors, involved in the problem of itinerants. Although the local authority, at considerable expense, often takes action, I have known of many cases where itinerants have been moved and then, tragedy of tragedies, have gone on to private land. Some small farmers in the area have been confronted with the problem. It is an expensive exercise to arrange through the private sector to have itinerants removed from private property.
Against that background, I hope that something positive and constructive can come out of this debate for the people involved. The Minister has a solemn responsibility. I urge him to review the situation, particularly in relation to the growing problem in the west midlands of itinerants going on to private land and the local authorities, understandably, being reluctant to become involved in evictions.
I support designated sites. They are dotted around the west midlands, particularly in the Wolverhampton and Dudley areas.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the voice of the entire House of Commons speaking in unison on this important problem, which is a social problem now but which could easily become more devastating.

Mr. William O'Brien: I have been involved in the matter of gipsies for a considerable time. In the community that I represented as a local councillor, there was a gipsy population. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) that dealing with gipsies is a social problem that should be addressed nationally rather than locally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) enlightened the House on the position in Bradford. Before the Government abolished West Yorkshire county council, it was responsible for providing gipsy sites, but with the demise of that county council, proposals to provide more sites were put back for a considerable time. The local authorities had to pick up the problem, in addition to all the other problems created by the demise of the county council.
I thought that Ministers responsible for abolishing the county councils would address the serious problem of providing gipsy sites before doing so. That did not take place, so the problem was aggravated. In West Yorkshire we are now witnessing the problems that have been picked up by the district councils. We must consider provision of gipsy sites seriously and in depth because it is a social problem.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West asked the House to speak in unison, but I do not support all the comments made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green

(Sir H. Rossi). Not all travellers fit the description that he gave. Some people come into that category, but it would be misleading and wrong to persuade the House that all travellers fit the description.
In my early days, some genuine gipsies bought old property in the town where I lived. They wanted to settle as members of the community. The menfolk worked for the local authority refuse collection department. They were some of the best workers that the department had. They turned out in all weathers, they were always on time, and they were regular attenders. The children attended the local schools. The conditions that those people lived in were appalling, so the local authority decided to house them in council houses. A third and fourth generation of those families is now settled in the community.
If people want to take part in a society and settle in it, local authorities should be in a position to help them. However, under this Government that help is constantly withdrawn or reduced because local authorities are denied the opportunity to provide accommodation for gipsies. No private landlord will help them. I hope that the Minister will explain how local authorities can provide sites and make sure that they are maintained.
In my constituency there is an official site for gipsies, but because of constraints on local authority expenditure it was transferred to a private operator who promised to improve the site and provide facilities for several caravans if he could include some spaces for permanent caravans. That was agreed, but there was a gross deterioration in the maintenance of the site. It changed hands on more then one occasion. We must not only provide sites, but see that they are maintained, that facilities are provided and that the people appreciate the facilities. Without that support and cover, there will always be problems, no matter how many sites local authorities provide. Unless there are adequate resources to maintain sites and to provide back-up and advice for travellers, there will be constant arguments and rancour among groups of people in the community.
I doubt that provision for creating and maintaining gipsy sites is included in the formula for arriving at the standard spending assessments of local authorities. I doubt that the Minister and his colleagues consider the resources needed for gipsy sites when they assess the expenditure that local authorities can attain. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. I fear that I am correct because the formula for assessing local government expenditure does not refer to gipsy sites.
We must also consider illegal camping. The site to which I referred is on the edge of some common land. We are trying to ensure that the common land remains available to local people and is protected. I am waiting for the Government to introduce the necessary legislation to protect the common land. People park on the common land, which creates problems in the community. We need legislation to protect the common land. During the past three of four years, the Government have promised to introduce legislation, but we are still waiting for it. We wish to debate any such legislation and the protection of common land.
The gipsy problem throws up many issues. Another part of my constituency that was affected is in the Leeds city area. Motor travellers settled on land that was previously arable. The whole area was covered by caravans. The people who settled collected old tyres. They were paid for the disposal of those tyres, but all they did


was to dispose of them on the land around the caravans. There was a vast area of disused tyres and genuine concern that someone would set those tyres ablaze, which would have caused a tremendous problem. Leeds city council cleared the site of the caravans and the tyres, which cost its ratepayers a great deal of money.
Local authorities should be given the opportunity to provide legal, proper sites with all the facilities and necessary back-up services to address the problem in a proper manner.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the advent of the poll tax and the strain on local authority expenditure, it will be difficult for local authorities to meet the provision he advocates? Those authorities will be hard pressed to maintain existing services without venturing to provide more sites and paying for their maintenance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution lies with central Government, who should provide better grant assistance for the maintenance, development and improvement of gipsy sites, rather than leaving it in the hands of local authorities?

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has pre-empted some of my argument.
If we do not address local government finance, we cannot solve the problem. The introduction of the poll tax is significant. The Select Committee report refers to Doncaster, which has provided an additional gipsy sites. That authority is poll tax-capped and, despite the fact that it has provided a site for gipsies—I am sure that it wanted to provide such a site—with all the necessary facilities and back-up services, the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided that £10 million must be taken out of its budget. How can Ministers or any other Conservative Member say that Doncaster district council has an obligation and a right to provide such sites, if the first thing the Secretary of State does is to cut the amount of money necessary to sustain those sites? If that is not hypocritical. I do not know what is.
If we accept the report and agree that local authorities have a responsibility to provide sites for gipsies as well as meeting their educational and other requirements, it is wrong for the Minister to say that authorities that are providing those sites must cut their expenditure just because he considers that that expenditure is too great.
If the House is sincere and if we want unity across the Chamber, we must tell the Secretary of State and his lieutenants that it is wrong to tell local authorities that have provided in their budget for gipsies to limit the amount of money that they can spend on such facilities.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am extremely concerned about adequate facilities for gipsies and travellers, but surely there is a defect in the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. He appears to be saying that, if a local authority is making good, proper provision for gipsies and travellers, it is impossible that it could be grossly overspending in other ways. He has argued that Ministers should not cap such authorities for gross over-expenditure in other matters when, within proper expenditure, they have provided for gipsies and traveller families. The hon. Gentleman must accept that that cannot be logically consistent.

Mr. O'Brien: How anyone in this Chamber or in Marsham street can say what Doncaster district council

should provide for gipsy caravan sites, education or any other services, I do not know. The people who should make such decisions are the people of Doncaster. The quicker we realise that, the better it will be for the provision of the necessary services for gipsies or any other person in that area.

Mr. Cryer: The truth is that the cap covers all expenditure. Although a local authority is given an opportunity to cut its expenditure, that local authority will be under pressure to cut every service. There will be strong local pressure not to cut the provision for education or housing if there are other suitable areas in which cuts can be made. Inevitably the provision for gipsies will be subject to greater pressure than any other once an authority is faced with forced cuts imposed by the Government.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has spelt out admirably the dilemma faced by authorities that are poll tax-capped, particularly Doncaster.
I am conscious that, before May this year, when the Tories were in control, a constant stream of Ministers visited Bradford.

Mr. Cryer: It did the railway service a power of good.

Mr. O'Brien: How much time did Ministers from the Department of the Environment or from any other Department spend talking about gipsy sites in Bradford? Did Ministers tell the Tories of Bradford that they should provide sites for those people?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has asked some pertinent questions. The Conservatives came to power in Bradford in September 1988 on the back of hysteria whipped up against gipsies and travellers and against the backdrop of a controversy motivated purely for party political reasons. The designation came in April 1990, but there is no evidence of any action by the Tory council or by Ministers who weekly visited Bradford. That is why I was forced to ask the Minister certain questions. I hope that I shall receive some answers.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has explained how things were when the Tories were in control of Bradford. Promises were made in Bradford, but perhaps it was one of those times when someone said, "Read my lips," and everything changed. Fortunately, the constitution of the council in Bradford has changed and I am sure that progress will be made on the social problems to which hon. Members have referred.
How often does the Minister, his colleagues or any of the civil servants in the Department of the Environment discuss the plight of gipsies with the Gypsy Council or its representatives? If such consultation could be established, the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green could be put on the agenda. The problems that have been raised and the concern that has been expressed could be put to the council and debated with the fervour shown by the hon. Gentleman. Without such dialogue, the issues will not be solved. I accept that there is a social problem, and the sooner we have some form oF consultation with the people who need help and assistance, the better it will be.
The Select Committee's report refers to evidence of differing views between police forces and local authorities on the appropriate circumstances in which section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be used in cases of


gipsies' trespass. Differing views between police forces and local authorities make it difficult to resolve the problem. The report says that the Home Secretary is expected to report towards the end of 1990. If we are to solve the social problem that has been outlined tonight, the House should have a further opportunity to debate the issue when that report is published and when we know what the Home Secretary intends to do to try to reconcile the different views of the local authorities and the various police forces.
I hope that we shall not walk away from tonight's debate saying that the Home Secretary will report and leaving it at that. There is a lot that can be done. The responsibility is with the Minister and the Secretary of State and I hope that they will not walk away from that. If they do, that would be the biggest sin that could be committed against the very people who need help. When I refer to the people who need help, I do not mean just the gipsies but our constituents as well who are affected by the problems created by gipsies parking in their areas.
I appeal to the Minister to take this issue seriously and to give some assistance to local authorities.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The quality of tonight's debate has been high. Let me stir a few memories. The House is often reminded of the appalling massacre of Jews in what they termed the holocaust in Germany. The House is less often reminded that Nazi Germany also took into the concentration camps and murdered the gipsies.
I was elected to the House in 1960, but only once have I heard a Member stand up in the House and speak with pride of his gipsy ancestry. That was Sir John Arbuthnot who, in a debate in this House in the 1960s, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said: "I am a diddikoi." I respected him for that.
The legislation is inadequate for those in need and for those who are suddenly afflicted by the arrival of people whom the public term gipsies but who are not Romanies. The Romany race—its people call themselves a race—is deeply resentful of the fact that many people who do not have the disciplines that they seek to impose on their community, their children, their dogs and their way of life, are termed gipsies. I make those remarks in passing.
I think that it is a representative truth to say that it is Conservative Governments who have tried to deal with the problem by legislation—legislation which the Select Committee's report has rightly revealed to be inadequate.
But the truth of the matter has been revealed in many excellent speeches tonight. If families are continually moved on, the children will have no proper, consistent education. I have knowledge of that in my constituency. I am proud that schools in my constituency take pains to give special attention to the needs and problems of the children of travellers. But a particular problem arises on the capitation fees of those schools, because the numbers are taken at certain times of the year which do not correspond with the times when the travellers are there. Therefore, there is gross under-funding. Primary schools may have a 30 per cent. increase in their numbers as a result of an influx of travellers' children for which there is no financial provision, because the children are not there on the day of the count.
Those are factors for which any competent Government must make provision. I do not say "take into account" because two of the most debased phrases in politics are "taking into account" and "make allowances for"—"paying the full cost of" is the currency that I am in business to deal with.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another side to the problem in schools, of which I have evidence in my constituency? The arrival of 25 travellers' children effectively brought a primary school in Chertsey to a halt when they engaged in running battles in the playground. That school did its best to provide education, but it was incapable of doing so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that we are in agreement, not in disagreement. My right hon. Friend has raised another problem—that of a sudden arrival.
I was talking of resources. If the resources do not exist, the problem is still worse. But in some areas the arrival of travellers' children is seasonal and predictable. If their arrival is not predictable, the position is even worse. But if the arrival is predictable, the resources should be made available to deal with them. Those resources should not be on the normal capitation basis, because many of those children need teaching on a one-to-one basis.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
They need one-to-one teaching if they are not to disrupt the classes. That is not because they have a greater dose of original sin than other children, but because they have a lower threshold of boredom. Unless they can perceive the relevance of what they are being taught to their expectation of their livelihood, their boredom becomes disruptive.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend is a little unjust in berating the Government about capitation, because the formulas are drawn up by each local education authority and vary greatly from one part of the country to another. My own council, Hertfordshire, provides special assistance for schools which have to take travelling children. That takes the form of extra teaching and equipment and more resources for running costs such as the cost of paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend should talk to his local education authority.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unfortunately, local education authorities can spend only the resources that they have at their disposal. If central Government do not make available significant extra resources for local authorities which have these massive extra expenses, my hon. Friend is simply asking local education authorities to rob Peter to pay Paul. These expenses cannot be met from existing resources.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, and for that reason I shall not cover the whole spectrum of these problems, except to say, first, that the Conservative Government who legislated for a mandatory requirement to provide permanent sites were right. Without permanent sites there cannot be the facilities that go with them, and provision for education. We must accept that wherever those


permanent sites are located they will damage, if not destroy, the value of adjacent properties. That has been apparent throughout the debate.
When a site is chosen it adversely affects one councillor's bailiwick and the rest of the councillors are heartily grateful that their areas are not affected. Therefore, it is probable that the county council—not now the planning authority—which is responsible for choosing the site will, when it negotiates with the district council, find the majority of the district councillors saying, "Thank God, it has not been visited on my bailiwick. Yes, I will vote for it whatever the merits or lack of them." They will do that whether or not the local primary school can accept the children from the site. That is why I impress on my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that there should always be a public inquiry before a decision of this kind is made. That is the only way in which all the issues can be discussed. The damage to the total savings that people have put into their houses is one such real issue that has been brought out in the debate. Other issues are the availability of education, medical resources and transport, which can be properly aired in a public inquiry.
My principal point is that, when a site is chosen, because of the implications which have been so well illuminated in the debate, there should always be a public inquiry before planning permission is granted. It is too severe a test to expect the members of a planning authority, who are relieved that a site is not to be visited on their bailiwick, to decide against the interests of the one councillor who is averse to it. That is my message to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has a most difficult and taxing job to do in this respect. Clearly, none of us envy him.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am one of the Members for the county of Surrey, which has recently been directed by the Department of the Environment to provide another 190 official pitches. I do not object to that direction, and I have publicly said so, because it is plain that we need some system of official pitches, as some gipsies, travellers or whatever nomenclature one wishes to apply, want permanent sites.
I have taken the trouble to visit sites in Surrey—one official series of pitches at Claygate in my constituency and another in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The gipsies there were well organised, and by and large seemed responsible. They were looking after the site themselves, in the sense that they had appointed their own hierarchy to make sure that certain tasks were carried out.
Given that the gipsy or traveller problem will not just disappear, I want to put on record before saying some less complimentary things, the fact that the gipsies that I met on the official sites were not likely to cause a great deal of actual harm to the local community, even though the process of assimilation is difficult, especially with schooling, which has been mentioned. Apparently, it is the unknown on both sides which causes tension, but certainly the difference of habit present a serious problem when trying to maintain the normal routine and discipline of school life in the face of an influx of travellers from the permanent sites.
Another difficulty is that there are insufficient permanent sites, certainly in Surrey, for the numerous

populations of travellers. It is reckoned that there are about 150 to 200 caravans illegally parked each day in the county. The problem for my constituents and for those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), who is beside me, is that those itinerants have no responsibility to the community which they are temporarily parked.
Hon. Members have eloquently given examples of what has happened in their constituencies, and I do not have time to go into much detail. In many cases, temporary stays or in some cases stays of some weeks cause chaos in the community. There is danger from dogs, a perceived danger to health and the travellers call at houses and appear to threaten residents who are going about their normal business. There is disruption because gipsies undertake business practices that no other citizen would ever be allowed on such sites. Travellers often attempt to take advantage of gullible people in the area in conducting their business.
My constituents and those of my colleagues are justifiably angry about the disgraceful rubbish that is often left by gipsies—excrement has been mentioned several times, and it is a genuine problem. The cost of removing rubbish when the gipsies leave is horrendous. There are not just problems of site maintenance; the real cost is that of clearing up after the gipsies have gone. We often have to put up protection against their return. On the Old Common in Cobham in my constituencyy, it is reckoned that the council spent £10,000 putting in a ditch to try to prevent the return of the gipsies after a particularly prolonged stay.
I shall be brief, because other colleagues wish to speak. We do not have sufficient powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I have enormous sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister who is to sum up a debate in which impassioned presentations have been made, but the legislation on the statute book simply satisfies nobody. It does not satisfy people who have to deal with the problems of illegal parking; it does not even satisfy councils that have achieved designated status, because even when they have achieved that status, they still face legal difficulties in moving people on. It is not a simple process.
As the chief executive of Guildford borough council, in my constituency, said, once designation has been obtained, it is not simple, cheap and quick to move people on. Therefore, I do not believe that there is sufficient incentive to obtain designation, given all the politically charged problems involved in identifying official sites. I know all about those because another village, Claygate, in my constituency contains all the pitches that presently exist in Elmbridge borough. Clearly, residents of that village think that others should contribute to the provision of pitches.
Guildford has provided 17 pitches, but it needs a further 13 to be designated. Elmbridge has provided 16 pitches, but it needs 14 more. There is a dispute between Elmbridge and the Department about whether a group of privately provided pitches should have been included for the purpose of that count, but I shall not go into that this evening.
This problem is not going to get easier and has all the signs of getting worse. It causes great concern to law-abiding citizens, not only when their territory is invaded, but when they are in fear of it being invaded.
When itinerants in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) eventually get moved on, they come into mine. I


have a problem in Hurst park, Molesey, in my constituency that I am sure will recur. If itinerants are moved on, they will move to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). It is a continual problem and we must have tougher powers even with designation—there is no point in fudging that. I know that the Department does not approve of comparisons with the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulations Act 1984—private legislation—which gave more obviously controlled powers to councils in Epsom and Ewell. That Act cannot be dismissed as applying merely because the Derby is held there, but it may hold lessons that can be extended to wider areas.
We must clarify the Public Order Act 1986 for the police, who constantly say that they do not like to intervene. We must clarify the system of using bailiffs, because there is often insufficient time for them to get round the sites, even when directions have been given, and this causes delays. There was such a case in my constituency.
I shall cut short my remarks but I do not wish my brevity to be interpreted as a lack of detailed argument in favour of the Government gripping the problem. I would not want my hon. Friend the Minister to have to take part in another debate like this one—he has enough problems in other spheres. I hope that he has the good fortune to stay in his current post. Then, unless the legislation is changed, we shall all be debating the issue again in the next Session.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I shall make only a few brief remarks, because other hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise for having arrived late from another meeting, but it was absolutely essential.
Before I became a full-time politician, I was an assistant director of social services, heading a research division. I remember the day that the director called me in and asked me to appoint someone to help to deal with the gipsies. That was at Durham county council, and knowing my political affiliation, the House will see the advantage of my having responsibility for the gipsy population.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned the threat to and murder of people in Nazi Germany. Some of those with whom I have to deal have felt under threat for much of the time. There are differences among the travellers in any population. There are those who are poor and others who are rich; some are well educated, others are illiterate and uneducated; some are super-business men, others find difficulty eking out a living.
Durham county council carried out its task of providing for gipsies in a sensible, pragmatic and planned way. All hon. Members have experience of the problems of planning when, for example, people say that they agree that there should be sites for gipsies—but in someone else's area, not theirs. One of Durham's first actions was to adopt a policy of non-harassment. The councillors had some difficulty in agreeing to that, and some of them found it even more difficult to carry out. However, they united behind the policy and it has worked.
Following the Cripps report, the council realised that there were advantages to providing adequate sites for

gipsies. If those sites were well prepared with toilets, sheds and so on, the council found that, in general, the gipsies respected them. That was some 13 or 14 years ago, yet some areas still do not provide adequate sites for gipsies.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Tiverton, who referred to the problems of education and the effect of travellers on local schools. Durham carefully studied the possibility of itinerant teachers teaching children on location at gipsy sites rather than in the local schools. The smaller villages with smaller schools cannot always cope with the travellers, who can become a large part of the local population.
I remember a discussion that I had with Hughie Smith, the founder-chairman of the National Gypsy Council. Hon. Members will be aware that, from time to time, people allege that the travellers are not real gipsies. Hughie Smith always says, "A real gipsy pinches the milk out of your tea." People try to disparage travellers by pretending that one group of travellers are real gipsies, but the others are just drop-outs—people who do not want to live in a normal society and who take advantage of the protection for gipsies. That is ludicrous and stupid.
I spent some considerable time talking to gipsies. On one occasion, I attended court following trouble with a lurcher dog which had been worrying sheep. What shook some of the councillors was when I took them to see some of the gipsy caravans. I have always lived in a house, but I must tell hon. Members that the knick-knacks, furniture, silver and other bits and pieces in some of those caravans vastly outweighs the number of such items in my bungalow in Peterlee. Some gipsies are extremely wealthy and some of their caravans are palatial. One had a bigger bar than the Chairman of my Committee had ever seen.
Preparation of sites throughout the country should be speeded up. One hon. Member said that gipsies want to settle. It is true that some do, but we have to provide sites for those who do not. Some gipsies can earn a living only by moving around.
I do not doubt that the Minister is interested in this issue. I know that he took a sympathetic view on the poll tax, and I have no doubt that he will take a similar view of gipsy sites. It would help if local authorities speeded up provision of sites. Some are more dilatory than others.
A policy of non-harassment is vital. We keep talking about gipsies as though there were a different species, but they are human beings and they have to be treated as such. As a group, perhaps because they have lived like that for centuries, they have chosen a way of life that hon. Members would not want. They prefer being itinerant to living in a bungalow like mine in Peterlee. That is merely a cultural difference. We must also consider gipsy children's education, which is essential.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome this debate on an important and politically sensitive subject, which has been pushed to the margins of local and central government for far too long. The issue may be prominent for lawyers and theorists, but too often in practice, deeds have fallen far short of intentions.
As so many hon. Members have done, I could also spend 10 minutes expounding the problems that gipsies cause. My constituency is a traditional area for gipsies, and they cause some problems, but a large proportion of


them are law-abiding citizens, who keep their caravans well and make a genuine contribution to the communities in which they live.
There are problems, but they have been caused by lack of firm Government policy and a legislative framework which is too diffuse—reactive rather than proactive—and which pushes gipsy problems on to local councils, which are not best placed to deal with them because of political sensitivities.
I come from a county that is identified in the Select Committee report as one of the laggards. Hereford and Worcester county council is said to be performing badly, despite the fact that it has 157 council and 70 private sites—more than any other county in the east or west midlands.
In the Wyre Forest, at Stourport, we have provision for 56 caravans—the largest provision in the best-providing county. Despite that, we cannot achieve designation. To be fair, the county council has tried for it, and that has produced some justifiable resentment. Moreover, the Hereford and Worcester county council has 550 out of 1,406 caravans—a far greater number than the national average—on unauthorised encampments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said, the national problem is not likely to improve much, and it may well get worse.
The number of caravans is rising all the time: in 1978 there were 8,520; by 1990 that had increased to 11,544—and we have not even taken into account the factor that the National Gypsy Council mentioned in its latest report, which is the increasing numbers of European travellers who are likely to come here after 1992.
Although there has been some progress in getting more people on to authorised sites, the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Dudding—I feel sorry for him, having heard the drubbing that he has been given—shows that it will take 25 years to clear the backlog and put gipsies on authorised sites, in the process tackling what Mr. Dudding called an intractable problem. Once we have put the gipsies on authorised sites, we must get the sites and amenities up to a reasonable standard.
Three major problems emerge: first, the political insensitivities that surround the issue. Too often, because there are no significant planning guidelines for the allocation of gipsy sites, public inquiries are called for. If an authority wants to set up a new—permanent or temporary—authorised gipsy encampment and has to hold a public inquiry for each one, we shall never make the sort of progress that we need to make to eliminate the problem even within 25 years.
Secondly, the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which I understand was a private Member's measure, was remarkable in that it looked at policy in a wholly demand-led fashion. Because of that, there is never any certainty about whether there will be designation. My county council thought that it would get designation and was told that it would, but having counted the numbers six months later, it discovered that the figures on the basis of which it was trying to get designation were out of date, so none was forthcoming—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a moving staircase.

Mr. Coombs: Indeed.
There are also uncertainties in respect of the powers available to the police under the Public Order Act 1986, although I hope that the Home Department will deal with that problem later this year.
Most importantly, a demand-led policy leads to catch 22: the more virtuous the local authority, the more gipsies come to its area—the honey-pot effect—so the further away designation recedes.
All these problems are exacerbated by the fact that one is dealing with a mobile and undefined population. The National Gypsy Council correctly says that, to deal with the problem in the short or medium term, we must come up with some definition of a gipsy.
This is an intractable problem, not helped by the fact that the legislative framework within which we try to deal with it is weak and diffuse.
The third problem stemming from the legislative framework is that it provides the ultimate opportunity for buck-passing. The Government do the designations; the county council decides where sites go within the county area; then the district council faces the administrative and operational problems of carrying out the policy. Small wonder, then, that Hereford and Worcester county council has not achieved designation, despite trying to for 18 years.
I suggest a number of answers. First, we have suffered because we have taken an unduly paternalistic and public-sector approach to the provision of sites for gipsies.
The National Gypsy Council should be given far more responsibilities for site management and negotiating site acquisitions. That would lead to sites that had been authorised by the National Gypsy Council. It would provide competition for public sector sites.
There is great merit in the National Gypsy Council's suggestion that, if we are to tackle the problem meaningfully and decisively, there should be a national gipsy commission to find sites, and which could also be used as a conduit for either central Government or housing association funding. The Commission would have a role to play in site improvement. It would provide greater impetus for tackling the problem.
We need a better definition of "gipsy". I like the National Gypsy Council's suggestion that it should be
persons of a nomadic tradition of life.
The council believes that a gipsy ought to be able to show that he has followed a nomadic tradition of life for at least two generations before he can call himself a gipsy. By that means, we should be able to cap the potential demand, given the normal demographic and family group factors, for gipsy facilities.
We must also rationalise the operational responsibilities for gipsies. I do not mind whether that is at district or county council level. I should prefer the county council to have the responsibility for both identifying and operating gipsy sites. It would overcome the problem of a local councillor who votes against anything, come what may, because it would affect his own patch. If the matter were dealt with at county council level, it would be administratively simpler and more objective.
In order to get away from the demand-led provision of sites for those who reside in or resort to an area, there ought to be another defence. There is a far greater number of caravan sites than the population justifies in my area. The administrative body ought to be able to say that, if the "resort or reside" demand-led policy is strictly adopted, it


would have to provide far more caravan sites than is justified on a strict pro rata population basis. That ought not to happen.
I agree with those hon. Members who have said that tougher enforcement powers following designation, provided that we can speed up the number of permanent gipsy sites by the means that I have suggested, are vital. Enforcement powers should be available, not just for gipsies who happen to be in an area where they are unauthorised and who thereby are causing a nuisance. If we gave the National Gypsy Council more responsibility for the management of both its own and council sites, there would be stricter enforcement powers for sites that are not properly managed. Bad management of sites causes many of the problems of which residents complain.
It is a difficult problem. The Minister has to deal with the problem virtually at third hand through the county and district councils. I do not envy the Minister's task. That applies irrespective of the political colour of the Government. The law needs to be reformed. I hope that the Government will consider my proposals seriously.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I appreciate that other hon. Members have constrained their speeches to allow everyone who wishes to participate in the debate to do so.
I wish to make three points which have been dealt with by a number of hon. Members and to reinforce some of the arguments that have already been aired. I shall concentrate on the numbers of vans, gipsies and travellers that have been designated; the inability of existing legislation to allow the removal of travellers illegally camped on land, and on the permanence and luxury of the vans in which people live, as that affects future numbers, as was spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
The numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. The 1968 legislation was probably based on an expectation that numbers were static or declining but were certainly unlikely to increase. How clear is the Department as to whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing? If we have a 25-year plan for dealing with current numbers, if those numbers are allowed to increase—and how can we prevent it?—we have an insoluble problem which negates all the work and all the money that is being spent.
My second point concerns the luxury and comfort of the vans. This means that the way of life of people who have not considered themselves nomads in the past can be more readily considered as an alternative and as a cheap form of living by those who live in permanent housing and pay for all the responsibilities carried by everyone else in the community. That must be tackled, because it affects the numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest suggested one way in which, through the efforts of the National Gypsy Council, a capping of those numbers could be considered. That suggestion needs following up and pursuing and unless we do that, we shall not find a long-term answer.
Thirdly, the law seems to be unsatisfactorily weighted in favour of those using illegal gipsy sites. They can appeal against High Court injunctions for their removal for a

considerable time. In this way they continue to occupy a site for two, three, four or more years, to the great detriment of people living locally, whether in owner-occupied or rented housing. Their lives are being ruined in the way so dramatically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). Although my constituency has not suffered the same abuse of individuals and property, there is no doubt that my constituents have the same fears and concerns. They see the local authority as having no powers to remove the illegal encampment, however much it wishes to do so.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not always that one-sided? I remember an incident involving an illegal site. Thinking that there might be some difficulty, I took someone with me in my car and then went to meet residents of local houses. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those residents, not the itinerants, were trying to turn my car over.

Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly proper point, and I accept that it is a valid example. It highlights the points that have been made that such incidents can produce social tensions, and that must be addressed by the changes in legislation. It is little wonder that the residents of those houses felt angry because, as they perceived it, a group of travellers were illegally encamped, yet the law and authority had no power to overcome the problem. That does terrible damage to the law and the standing of the law. We should not be prepared to tolerate that.
A site in my constituency was owned by a gipsy family, on which one caravan was legally parked. The family allowed other members of the "family"—30 caravans—to park on it. They sold plots of the land to members of the family. That was illegal, but they are arguing about title to ownership and can appeal against any action and remain there pending the outcome of those appeals. I am aware that local authorities—I hope that this will not occur in this instance, but I know that it has occurred elsewhere, because I have some knowledge of Cambridgeshire—have done deals to allow part of the site to be used permanently for caravans as a way of solving the problem for the whole of the site. Completely averse to any long or short-term planning arrangements, a permanent site is established quite illegally because there seems to be no other alternative.
Ministers cannot allow that to go on. We need urgently to change the law; and I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that, if action does not follow this debate, we shall be back with more debates on this fundamental and vital issue. We hope for change, and that we shall receive a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. George Howarth: For the most part, this has been an appropriately civilised debate. Subjects that could have been dealt with emotively because of local difficulties that right hon. and hon. Members experience were dealt with sensitively, and the House and those who take an interest in the subject will be grateful for that.
The Minister must be the most unenvied hon. Member and probably the most unenvied Minister of any Department. Almost every hon. Member said that they did


not envy his task. Given some of the other responsibilities that have been part of his portfolio in the past few months, I can understand that he is far from envied, and perhaps justifiably so.
I am a former member of the Select Committee on the Environment. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) presented a typically forensic, accurate and intelligent approach to the subject and he did not understate the case. It was put effectively, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, pointed out. He deserves the congratulations of the House on that task having been so accomplished.
I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who clearly represent an area that has a long-standing problem. They resisted the temptation for a media reaction to the resolution of that problem and they talked with great sensitivity and great understanding of the problems in the city of Bradford. They were a great credit to their constituents in the handling of the matter.
The debate has not been party political as this is not a party political issue. However, to take up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, it is unfortunate when a political party in any part of the country uses this issue as a stick with which to beat another party at election time. I hope that such heat can be taken out of the subject, as it appears not to have been on at least one occasion in Bradford. It is not constructive, it does not lead anywhere, it builds up false expectations and, in the long run, it is not a helpful way of dealing with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) brought to bear on the discussion an understanding unequalled in the House. I cannot think of another hon. Member who has had professional responsibility for dealing with these problems. Although it did not lead to his car being turned over, that is not an irregular event and on occasions, it has been more his problem than anybody else's. He brought a particular experience to the debate, which was useful and helpful. I cannot cover all the speeches in great detail because of the restricted time available, and I am anxious not to overrun the time allocated to me.
The problem is not getting any smaller, as various hon. Members pointed out. The number of authorised encampments in 1981–-to take a reference point—was about 4,201); there are no more than 4,500 now. Any progress has been small and has not eaten into the problem. The consequences of not dealing with the demand for places have been outlined by other hon. Members, but they may need underlining further.
Maternity Alliance, which has not been mentioned so far, is not a party political body and is concerned mainly with the problems of childbirth and motherhood. It has highlighted the problem for travellers in securing safe stopping places during childbirth. Apparently, there has been an acknowledged problem—not a huge problem because the numbers are not high—of people finding a secure place to give birth. The Maternity Alliance has also pointed out that the use of the Public Order Act 1986 has, on occasions, led to pregnant women being harassed—not with fatal consequences—at a time when the last thing that they need is to be moved on, harassed and harried by police and other officials.
The National Council for Civil Liberties generates controversy from time to time, but generally it tries to act as a watchdog for our civil liberties, and I am sure that most reasonable hon. Members agree that it fulfils a necessary function. The NCCL has pointed out that, on occasions, the civil rights of travelling people have been breached. It has stated that there is a need for designated sites and proper stopping places. It is difficult to protect the civil rights of anybody who does not have a regular pattern of living.
The NCCL has recognised that about one third of England is, in effect, a no-go area for travelling people. That shows the reality of the choices available to them. They are not welcome in and will be moved on from as much as one third of the area of England. We need to address that serious problem. The NCCL has also published a series of proposals, not all of which either the Labour party or myself would endorse. Nevertheless, it has highlighted the fact that in this case there has been an erosion of civil liberties and that we must deal with that issue.
Several hon. Members referred to the problem of education which, for many travelling children, simply does not exist. Many of them do not have any continuity or pattern to their education because the lack of permanent sites and stopping places makes that impossible. That means that we shall have a continuing problem. The merry-go-round of official action, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West highlighted so well and 10 which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred, but from a different perspective, is also evident in travelling children's education. They cannot have any continuity when they are moved from pillar to post and d o not know where they will be from one month—or even one week—to the next.
Several studies have been carried out on the health of travelling children and their families. A review article in the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners in October 1989 listed some of the health problems that general practitioners have encountered when trying to give treatment to the families of travelling people. The article refers to the hostile environment in which travelling people often live, which is often a breeding ground for disease and leads to various other problems. It also refers to their problems of access to health care because, as I said., they do not have a regular pattern of living and have no regular base. Both the length of that article and the limited time available to me prevent me from going into as much detail as I should have liked, but I repeat that we must address that real health problem.
The real problem is that this Government and, to some extent, previous Labour Governments, have failed properly to enforce the legislative powers that already exist. It is that failure that has created all the other problems. It has led to the problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington has experience and to the problems experienced in constituencies across the country where there are rival hostilities. On the one hand, there is a need to provide homes for people to live in but, on the other hand, there is the problem of the hostility of resident communities when unofficial encampments are set up and sometimes even when there are attempts to establish more permanent bases.
In the end, the responsibility falls to Government. If local authorities, whatever their political persuasion, do


not fulfil their obligations, central Government must make them do so. That is the thrust of the Select Committee report and the thrust that my hon. Friends and I support.
I hope that, at long last, the health, education and other problems that have been raised in the debate, including the need to find sites, are tackled effectively. If they are not, the problems, as in the past 10 years or more, will continue to grow. If that happens, it will bring no credit to the Government, to the House and to hon. Members. While I suspect that the Minister will not be able to satisfy us that all those problems will be tackled, he has a worthy task.
This has been a good debate, which has shown that the Government of the day must try to resolve the problems that exist for this minority of people. Otherwise they will be the Government of only part of the nation and will not be looking after the interests of all, including this minority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I shall do my best in the 15 minutes remaining to answer the points that have been raised. I join others in congratulating all who participated in the debate, which has been of high quality. It has fairly reflected the fact that this is the first prime time debate on gipsies for many years. It vindicates the use that has been made on this occasion of important estimates time and has shown the widespread interest in the subject by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the clear and concise way in which he introduced the debate and presented the findings of the Select Committee. He, as a representative of Hertfordshire, knows more about the problem than many. He drew attention to some of the issues involved.
It has been obvious during the debate that it is not easy to find any consensus on the subject. If we needed reminding of that, we did not have to wait long before we heard the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) complaining that Bradford had been designated, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) complaining that Haringey had not been designated. It is against that background that I have been fortunate in receiving so much in the way of commiseration from hon. Members on both sides.
The starting point is the numbers and the progress that has been made since the passing of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. When that measure was passed, relatively few gipsies were on authorised sites. By January 1979 there were 8,358 gipsy caravans in England, of which 4,182 were on authorised sites and almost an equivalent number on unauthorised sites. In other words, only 50 per cent. by January 1979 were on authorised sites.
By January 1990—it is important when comparing figures always to choose the same month in the year because there is much variation during the course of a year—there were 11,544 gipsy caravans in England, an increase of about 3,200. The number on authorised sites had gone up from 4,182 to 7,650, an increase of about 3,500. That was a creditable improvement in performance, brought about by the way in which the Government implemented the Act. It is also significant that the number of caravans on authorised private sites has gone up significantly, from about 1,100 in 1979 to 2,471 in January this year.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and others pointed out, the question is to what extent the number will continue to increase, for at present the number of gipsy caravans is increasing almost as fast as additional provision is being made. That is why one can get a projection that it will be many years before the problem is resolved. I take a much more pessimistic—or perhaps realistic—view. The problems will never be solved while we rely on the legislation that we have. As soon as the demand is satisfied, there will be additional demands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West drew attention to the difficulty of defining a gipsy. It is worth reminding the House that the issue was considered in another place in a court judgment in 1988. The judgment confirmed the statutory definition by concluding:
The test of a person claiming to be a gipsy is that of a nomadic way of life rather than race or origin.
It is for the local authority to decide whether a person or group of people comes within that definition. From what one hears, there may be more scope for local authorities to question the credentials of some people who present themselves as gipsies. If that was done, we might see a slowing of the increase in the number of gipsy caravans. Clearly, it is not worth while for a council to undertake that questioning role unless it is designated. If it is designated, it can take effective action to ensure that unauthorised camping in its area is significantly reduced, if not eliminated.
We have heard that the increase in provision represents genuine progress, but of course things are not absolutely perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green reminded the House of the vile way in which some so-called gipsies behave and the awful consequences for people who live in the area. At the end of a powerful speech, my hon. Friend asked what advice I could give him. My advice is to seek to persuade his council in Haringey to apply for designation. My Department has done all that it can to persuade Haringey to apply for designation.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I assure my hon. Friend that I have done everything within my power to persuade the local authority to apply for designation. It debated the matter, and on a majority vote decided not to do so.

Mr. Chope: That is disappointing news. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue that. He asks the Government to force designation on Haringey, but it is clear from the debate tonight that even where an authority is designated, as Bradford city council is, the council can decide not to use its powers of designation. I fear that, if the Government legislated to satisfy my hon. Friend's request, the irresponsible Haringey council would refuse to use the powers that it had under designation.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Then it could be subject to judicial review or the old writs of certiorari or mandamus.

Mr. Chope: That is possible, but my hon. Friend is familiar with the difficulties of enforcing measures when a local authority is reluctant to fulfil its responsibilities under the law.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Chope: I shall come to Bradford. When Bradford was brought into the discussion, it was the low point of the


debate. The hon. Member for Bradford, West said that the result of designation in Bradford was no progress. The only reason why there was no progress in Bradford was that Bradford city council, which is now, sadly, under Labour control, did not use its powers under designation. The hon. Members for Bradford, West and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) traduced the true background of designation in Bradford. None of the neighbouring authorities raised substantial objections to the proposed designation, except North Yorkshire county council.
In the Bradford decision letter, the Department formally warned adjacent authorities such as Calderdale and Kirklees that, if they did not make provision, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take action against them. The Department's regional office has followed up those warnings with meetings, as it is important that adequate provision is made in those adjoining authorities.
Bradford is designated, and it is up to Bradford to decide whether it wants to use those powers of designation. From the information that I have received, I believe that the people of Bradford would much prefer the powers to be used so that they are not subjected to so much unnecessary nuisance from gipsies.

Mr. Madden: In Bradford, there are insufficient permanent sites for travellers who have come to the city over the year and neighbouring authorities have singularly failed to make permanent site provision. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the powers of designation are absolutely worthless? To seek to implement designation is futile because all one would seek to do would be to take caravans to the border of the authority, which would then immediately return. Designation is not an adequate solution to a long-standing problem that has affected administrations of all political persuasions and, over the years, cost the ratepayers of Bradford the best part of £500,000.

Mr. Chive: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Designation and the implementation of the powers of designation are not futile. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green recognises that if Haringey had designation, problems would be rapidly resolved. The same would be true of Bradford if the Labour council had the will to do more on behalf of the local people.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Chope: I shall not give way again. I have given way twice, and I have four minutes left in which to reply to the debate.
Important points about enforcement have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke about section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. The House will be aware that, on 26 October 1989, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced an evaluation of the working of section 39 of that Act, which will consider the sort of problems that my hon. Friend raised. The outcome of that review is expected at the end of the year. Certainly there seems to be a difference in the policies of police forces in different parts of the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) spoke about enforcement, which is a problem. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said because, many

years ago, I cut my teeth as a barrister largely relying on defending gipsies in Sevenoaks magistrates court. I am familiar with the number of gipsies in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Robert Carnwath, in his report on planning enforcement, considered caravans and how one can effectively issue an injunction against the unlawful occupation of land by a caravan that is being used for residential occupation. The Government believe that legislation is needed in that respect. I hope that it will be brought forward soon and will do something significant to relieve the problems to which my hon. Friends drew attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) di .d not believe that the designation powers were quick enough, cheap enough or effective enough. I believe that those powers can be used effectively, but the speed with which they are used obviously depends on the relationship that the local authority has with the local magistrates court—most local authorities do not seem to have a problem in that respect.
Obviously, costs can be incurred when cleaning up after the gipsies have left, but such cost is unavoidable so long as some gipsies behave in an anti-social manner. Designation and enforcement are more effective when more authorities are designated; that is why the Government are putting a lot of emphasis on trying to encourage more authorities to come forward with gipsy sites so that they can be designated.
This is very much a carrot-and-stick policy. The Government have tried to give local authorities the incentive to designate more sites. We have backed that up with a 100 per cent. grant and we are now considering whether to say that after a given period of time we shall no longer give any grant so that the minds of local authorities will be even more concentrated, giving them a greater incentive to seek designation for the provision of the extra gipsy sites that we need.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Estimates, 1990–91 (Class III, vote 3 and Class VIII, vote 4) and the remaining Estimates appointed for consideration this day.

CLASS III, VOTE 3

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £87,366,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other service.

CLASS XVI, VOTE

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £21,679,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on market support, grants for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood an coast protection, and certain other services.

CLASS XVI, VOTE 5

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £194,160,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office tourism, roads and transport and certain associated services, housing, historic buildings and ancient monuments, other environmental services (including civil defence), education, libraries and museums, health and personal social services, grants in aid, EC agency payments, other grants and certain other services, including research.

CLASS XVI, VOTE 9

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,926,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on central administration.

CLASS VIII, VOTE 4

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,785,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on road infrastructure required for the development of new towns, gypsy sites, smoke control, planning redevelopment and other environmental services, on other water supply, conservation and sewage services, and on town and country planning (including compensation).

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.).

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £77,488,089,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1991 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 242, 243, 244 and 456.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the six foregoing resolutions, the two resolutions of 14 June and the three resolutions of 2 July relating to Estimates 1990–91 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Peter Lilley.
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on 31 March 1991, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Business of the House Motion in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe may be proceeded with, though opposed until the end of a period of one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Wood.]

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That, (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 1 I th July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions; and
(2) If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will see, the motion is divided into two parts. As I understand it, it was put down as recently as last Friday. Will you accept a manuscript amendment to the second part, the section which deals with the private business next Thursday? If that were possible, it would be for the convenience of the House. Some of us do not want the second half of the motion, but are quite happy with the first part. As this is only the third day that it has been on the Order Paper, will you accept a manuscript amendment?

Mr. Speaker: The motion was down on Friday, when it was objected to. There would have been time to table an amendment yesterday.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The motion on the Order Paper has two purposes, as the House will divine. First, it provides for the debate on the charge limitation orders to continue until midnight tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday. Secondly—the point that is objected to by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—it allows the private business on Thursday to run for a full three hours even if the preceding business prevents that private business from starting at 7 o'clock.
The timing of the local government orders was agreed through the usual channels last week. It is worth noticing that, if the motion were not approved by the House, under Standing Orders the debate on the three separate orders would continue tomorrow evening until they were disposed of, which could be as late as 2.30 am. The debate could not be continued on Thursday and it is clear that that is not what the House would wish.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions you have ruled that sub judice matters should not be discussed in the House. As the Bill has gone to the Lords, may I ask you to say that the sub judice rule now applies to the business before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise. The local government motions are delegated legislation and the sub judice rule does not bite on that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The second part of the motion provides so-called injury time for private business. In allowing that, I am meeting a request from the Chairman


of Ways and Means. Bearing in mind that the business on Thursday—the London Underground Bill—affects the area surrounding the Palace and has been the subject of a report from the Services Committee, the Chairman considers that there is sufficient interest in that Bill to warrant giving it a full three hours' debate. That is the purpose of the second part of the motion.
I hope that the House will agree to this entirely reasonable request from the Chair and to the other agreed arrangements that I have mentioned. Any hon. Member who has concerns about the private business can raise them in the debate in the proper way.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The first part of the procedural motion is as we expected, and all hon. Members understand the need for it. It has been discussed in the usual way. The second part of the motion deals specifically with the way in which we deal with private Bills. It is well known that Opposition Members and some other hon. Members are not happy with the way in which private Bills are dealt with. The reasons are well rehearsed and have been debated many times, and no doubt we shall have another such debate before long, because the Government have issued a consultation document on the subject which I hope will lead to reform of the way in which we deal with private Bills.
I cannot understand—and the Leader of the House has not given us sufficient explanation—why we have to have this unusual procedural motion to deal with one private Bill which will be before the House on Thursday. Why does that Bill have to be protected, if I may put it that way? I am not discussing the Bill's merits because, as has rightly been said, they can be discussed at the appropriate time, but questions need to be raised as to why some Bills are protected by procedure and others are not. At a time when everyone recognises that we need to look at the way in which private Bills are dealt with, why is it necessary to have a rather tactless but specific procedural motion to deal with one private Bill? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the motion was rather surprisingly brought forward on Friday but was not moved.

Mr. Cryer: The motion was not moved on Friday and came before the only yesterday. That means that a rather sudden procedure has been visited upon the House.

Mr. Grocott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely for those reasons that we are not happy with the motion. So far, the Leader of the House has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why it is necessary to bring the motion forward on this Bill.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): It was agreed through the usual channels.

Mr. Grocott: No, it was not, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. We must have a satisfactory explanation of why matters have developed in this way.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Did he say that there had been no agreement through the usual channels? Does he recall that, on two occasions last week, the usual channels did not operate, and as a result there was an almighty shambles and a row in the House? The new Leader of the House seems to be more concerned about getting to bed than with

dealing with the matters in hand. I think that this matter should go back—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) agrees—and we should have a discussion about it. We should not treat Mr. Speaker with contempt because he made it abundantly clear last week that he wanted to sit in the Chair and see the usual channels operate. I do not want to sound a s though I am protecting the Speaker—

Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend is doing a good job.

Mr. Skinner: I know that it sounds like that. It is high time that the usual channels got together and sorted this out. I have reason to believe that if the line goes ahead there will be a great big heap of earth stuck in the middle of Parliament square for five years—

Mr. Cryer: Seven years.

Mr. Skinner: Seven years—it is going up—any advance on seven years? The Speaker will not be able to get his car round it. The Prime Minister will be gone by then and there will be a new Prime Minister with a Daimler who will not be able to get round the heap either.

Mr. Grocott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his diplomatic intervention. He is almost part of the usual channels himself these days, and he has been helpful.
It is clear that such motions should not go down on the Order Paper in this way, without proper discussion. I am sure that, unless the Leader of the House comes forward with a far better explanation than he has done so far. many of us will be inclined to vote against the motion.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Many of us are concerned about the Government's use of private Bills. The London Underground Bill will provide another arm in the legislation that the Government are introducing. The House knows of the difficulties that we have had over the Bills relating to docks and the opposition that has been generated because of the Government's actions. Therefore, to use this procedure as the Leader of the House is suggesting is contrary to the will of the House.
Private business and private Bills are a matter for the House of Commons, not the Government. Irrespective of any letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means, for the Government to table a motion insisting that we have three hours of debate with no interruption makes many of us suspicious that the Government have done that in the hope that they can pass the Bill on Thursday night in one sitting. If that were to happen, it would be outrageous. This is a highly contentious Bill.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, because the Government appear to be prejudging any decision that you, Mr. Speaker, may make tomorrow night. By putting down a time limit of three hours it is obvious that they expect you to accept the closure motion on this important private Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) would agree that it is wrong for the Government to seek to restrict debate in the House on such an important matter.

Mr. Orme: I put it to the Leader of the House, because I think that he is a fair person—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Leave it to the sagacious Members of the House. My hon. Friend knows best.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry if my hon. Friend does not agree, but I am sure that the Leader of the House is a fair person. I speak as a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Bill. We have met the Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of London Transport, and have taken technical advice. The Committee sees the Bill as a major proposition and believes that it should be examined in detail. Many of us believe that the Bill is seen by many people as a developers' Bill that will assist the development in Canary wharf and the east end of London.
I must make it clear that, although many of us are opposed to some aspects of the Bill, we are not opposed to the Jubilee line. We are opposed to the interchange being sited in Parliament square, and we shall develop that argument more fully on Thursday. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, understand the proposals? I shall remind him what they entail. The first point is not opposed by anyone—it has been agreed through the usual channels. It allows the debate to proceed until midnight tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday. The second point is designed to prevent the time available for debate on Thursday being curtailed by any Divisions that may take place at 7 o'clock. It is designed not to constrict, but to enlarge, the amount of time available. It will ensure that there is a full three hours for debate.
The motion has been tabled in response to a specific request from the Chairman of Ways and Means in the following terms:
As you know, this Bill affects the area immediately surrounding the precincts of the Palace and has been the subject of a report from the Services Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means feels that there is sufficient interest in this Bill to warrant Members being given a full three hours debating time.
I am responding to a request from the Chairman of Ways and Means to enlarge the time available to accommodate precisely the sort of points that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make. Had I not tabled the motion, the time available would be reduced by whatever time was taken by Divisions. I am responding to a specific request to meet the very points being raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that, on that basis, he will now concur with the motion.

Mr. Orme: I followed closely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Will he give an assurance that he will not move the closure and seek to put the matter to a vote on Thursday evening?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conduct of the proceedings on Thursday night will be under the charge of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the usual way. All that I am doing is attempting to ensure that the usual amount of time is available for that to take place.

Mr. Orme: It is that very point that makes me so suspicious. I understand the request from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but it is a Government motion. The Government are responsible for the motion and for the conduct of the business. We have a suspicion that the Government are trying to bounce the House to pass a Bill

on a basis that is quite unacceptable to the House. I could develop that argument, but I think that I have made my point. I urge my hon. Friends and any Conservative Members who want fair play to vote against the motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are in an unusual and I understand, unprecedented position, because the Government's proposals to cap the poll tax in an enormous number of local authorities—which are to be debated for an extended period tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday—do not allow sufficient time for proper consideration of what is probably the most draconian imposition on local government that we have ever witnessed—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) would just listen for a moment, he would hear my argument. The proposals merit far more than a day and a half of debate—indeed, far more than an extended day and a half.
With more democratic management, there would have been far longer and there would not have been any risk that the time necessary to discuss and vote on the three orders would interfere with the time set aside under the procedures of the House for private business. The usual channels—not a mechanism which normally benefits my party or one which we endorse—regard a day and a half as sufficient. I think it is not sufficient, even if one includes the time for three votes—up to three quarters of an hour. The motion has been tabled as a result of bad management. The Government have not allowed enough time.
However, I shall vote for the business motion tonight, for the following reason. We need at least three hours for the Second Reading debate on the London Underground Bill and the Jubilee line. I agree with the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who said that we need more than three hours.
I have a particular interest in Thursday evening's debate, because the London Underground Bill greatly affects my constituents. It contains a proposal to extend the Jubilee line from Green park via Westminster, under the river to Waterloo, through the north part of Southwark, into the Isle of Dogs, on to the Greenwich peninsula and then on to Stratford.
Until this morning, there had been a general expectation that the underground would have two new stations in the borough of Southwark—in Southwark and in Bermondsey—as part of the proposals to which the Government would announce their commitment. I awoke this morning to find two reports in the national press suggesting that those stations might now not be built. I had already yesterday arranged an urgent meeting for today with the Minister for Public Transport.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but surely his argument is more relevant to the private Bill than to the business motion.

Mr. Hughes: I am seeking to keep to the subject of the business motion, and I understand the difference. The important relationship between the business motion and Thursday's debate is that that will be our only opportunity to debate what appears to be a substantial risk that a Bill


which originally would have produced some benefit for my constituency will not now do so. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we have an extended debate of three hours.
The conjunction of business on Thursday means a debate and vote on poll tax capping for Southwark and then a debate on the Jubilee line, which is proposed to go under Southwark, but with no commitment for extra stations for the borough.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: All for nothing.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Member for Workington says, the risk is that we will have four or five years of disruption for the building of an underground line under the borough with no new stations to show for it.
The reason why we need time on Thursday for the private Bill but why this is bad management of business for the poll tax debate is that there are substantial cost implications for Southwark of the London Underground Bill, which the same day will probably be capped and have its budget reduced from £241,000 to about £229,000 if the orders are passed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Surely not? It is £235,000.

Mr. Hughes: No, £291,000 is currently the council's budget. The juxtaposition of the draconian poll tax capping of one of the poorest boroughs in Britain with a debate in which we are likely to hear that there will be no commitment to public transport benefit for the same borough is pretty rich indeed.
I hope that we shall have three hours for the London Underground debate on Thursday. We should also have had far longer for the poll tax debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Labour gain.

Mr. Hughes: It will not be a Labour gain. In this May's local election, Labour got 35 per cent. of the vote in Southwark and Bermondsey, and we got 55 per cent. I shall try not to be distracted again.
I am sad that the result of the procedural muddle in to which the Government have got themselves is that the important debates of tomorrow and Thursday will be curtailed; and that the House's usual procedures will now—although rightly—be disrupted by the need to protect private business.
I gather that the House is soon to decide on how to conduct private business—there have been inquiries, Committees have reported and the Government have given their responses. If we are to debate private legislation in this place, we need enough time to discuss it properly on Second Reading, and that may necessitate far more than three hours. If we are not to debate private legislation here, then major development must be decided by a proper democratic process. At the moment, all we have is a muddle, and inadequate time to discuss matters of immense local interest. We have to contort the procedures of the House to squeeze in a combination of public and private business—trying to pour a quart into a pint pot. it is a sad state of affairs, and this motion will barely rescue some time for consideration of the vital private business on Thursday.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The first half of the motion is the more palatable. It is worth pointing out that every order should have at least one and a half hours discussion; by lumping the orders together tomorrow, the Government will allow each one much less than that.
One of the Government's problems is that they are short of time. They have already announced that the House will rise on 26 July, so by means of this motion they are pushing through legislation as rapidly as possible in the diminishing time that they have left. That is entirely typical of a Government who, for the past 10 years, have abused the democratic procedures of the House and forced through Act after Act—far more, in fact, than the House and its secretarial staff can cope with.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend really trying to convince me, at 10.27 pm, that the Government are in time trouble? Is he seriously telling us that, because the House is getting up at the end of July, they do not have time to deal with this matter? I read a report in the Evening Standard that the House would have risen on the 19th, but that the Government would carry on to the 26th not because they did not have time but because two more garden parties had been laid on. Three of them have been put on this time—one extra because "she" is not paying the poll tax. If that is so, we are only here to allow those garden parties to take place, so that all those Members of Parliament can go trotting down the Mall. When I bump into them at the end of St. James's park, I say, "'Eh up, Jack, where are you going?" They say, "Well, it's the wife, you know."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would it not be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch the eye of the Chair to put these most interesting points to the whole House rather than to his hon. Friend?

Mr. Cryer: I am surprised by my hon. Friend's comments. What worries me, as he knows, is that the national executive committee of the Labour party has expressed some reservations about the anti-poll tax union. If Her Majesty is not paying the poll tax, as my hon. Friend suggests that she is not, that means that she will be part of the anti-poll tax union, so when we are in government our leadership may be somewhat reluctant to go and talk to her—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a long tradition of the House that we do not involve members of the royal family in our arguments.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for preventing me from entering that area. I must relate my remarks to the two motions. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Government are in difficulty over timing.

Mr. Skinner: We could come back in August.

Mr. Cryer: The only way the Government have managed to get their legislation through is by one guillotine after another. Only by tabling procedural motions such as this have they been able to squeeze in the additional legislation.
Earlier this evening we discussed the problems associated with gipsies. It was one of the few occasions when we had time to debate that important subject

without the continuing pressure of legislation. The House does not deal effectively with delegated powers. The capping orders are affirmative orders that each deserve one and a half hours of debate. The majority of legislation affecting our citizens is not primary legislation—it is provided by means of delegated powers, such as the poll tax capping orders. Delegated legislation should be given the degree of attention that it merits—much more than one and a half hours for each order.
We are considering 20 orders which, if each were given one and a half hours, would be debated for 30 hours. That shows how the House is being robbed of time. There would be 20 Divisions, so that we could register our clear opposition to each order. Every hon. Member representing a poll tax-capped authority would be able to spell out the cuts that the Government are imposing on them. Each authority will have to make emergency plans. We ought to be able to refer to the teachers and caretakers who will have to be sacked and the services for the mentally handicapped that will have to be cut, all because of the Government.
The first part of the business motion inevitably means that those details cannot be spelt out in the time available. There is insufficient time to accommodate all 20 Members of Parliament who represent poll tax-capped authorities. All of them are represented by Labour Members, but a crop of Tories will be sent in by the Whips, who will tell them, "Don't let the Opposition take up too much time—We want you to go in and speak for Tory-controlled local authorities that are not poll tax-capped." Those Members will use up 10 minutes of our time, in which we could have referred to areas being robbed by this Tory Government. We shall be robbed by the Tory serfs—servile people who speak in the debate at the behest of the Whips and take up our time. Then the Leader of the House—Mogadon man personified—comes here to set the place on fire.

Mr. Skinner: Mogadon man has changed his name; he is now Slippery Dick.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In ordinary circumstances, if the Tories took up half of each one and a half hours, with luck we might get 45 minutes. The Leader of the House has now come to tell us that we cannot even have that. We are to be limited to less than the full 30 hours which ought to be allocated to the order.
It is true that this has been agreed by the usual channels, but the usual channels know full well that the Government would bring in their huge majority and push through a more restrictive business motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Hon. Members should be quite clear that the Government have fiddled the arrangements, because they have concertina-ed 20 poll tax-capping provisions into three orders, one of which deals with a single authority, another with three authorities and the other with 16 authorities. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there should be a separate debate on each of those motions. The Government have already concertina-ed those into three orders so it is a double fiddle—first, reducing it to three orders and, secondly, giving us only one debate for 20 councils' poll tax limits.

Mr. Cryer: The House will soon have to consider the delegated legislation provisions. It is quite wrong to compress orders in this way. If the orders are important,


they should be given the one and half hours maximum time. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) mentioned the Education (Student Loans) Order, but debate on that was curtailed. Many hon. Members wanted to participate but made short speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was unable to participate, and made a point of order in protest.
Serious and important legislation such as these poll tax capping orders, which will affect millions of people, is being rushed through the House in, at best, an hour and a half and, at worst, in a few minutes. That is a matter of considerable outrage.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend said that the timing of the debate on poll tax capping had been agreed by the usual channels. I am not quite sure what "usual channels" means, so perhaps he will explain that to me. The Leader of the House must realise that it has not been agreed by Back Benchers, and if it has not been agreed by Back Benchers, there may he problems for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Cryer: The usual channels, as my hon. Friend knows, are the Whips on both sides. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office are in some difficulty because they have to negotiate the best deal.

Mr. Skinner: 'Allo, 'allo, 'allo!

Mr. Cryer: The Government are always imposing the potential threat, "If you do not agree, we will bring the troops in and force something through which is much less acceptable." As far as I understand it, that is how the usual channels work. Not having anything to do with the Whips Office at any time, I can tell my hon. Friend that I am not aware of the intricate mechanisms.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend will be.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) suggests that I will be. With his new-found enthusiasm for the European Community, he is much more likely to get into the Whips Office and the establishment before me.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The abuse of orders that my hon. Friend mentioned is considerable. Last night, we had an hour and a half on the Education (Student Loans) Order, which was much more significant than the Education (Student Loans) Bill. The Bill was a general enabling measure, and the detail was contained in the order. The order was 50 per cent. longer than the legislation, which we had spent considerable time debating in the House, but we had no chance of a reasonable or proper discussion on any of the serious issues.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for those points, and my hon. Friend is right. The motion is pushing through a chunk of delegated legislation. At the end of 1989, we held the Commonwealth delegated legislation conference, which occurs every five years. Many Commonwealth countries have much more careful scrutiny of delegated powers. In Canada, New Zealand and Zimbabwe, it is recognised that delegated powers have as much impact as—and sometimes more than—primary legislation.
The equivalent of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which scrutinises delegated legislation, often has the right to prevent a debate from taking place until it

has reported to the legislature, which does not occur here, and it has the right to stop the legislation coming into operation until it has received all the information it has requested. If there is a suggestion that the delegated legislation being considered is ultra vires, the Committee has the right to stop the legislation coming into force until a replacement order is put into operation.
The business motion shows how inferior this House is. We not only do not have an hour and a half—itself a nominal period—but no Committee, whether the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or any other Select Committee, has power to modify, delay, disrupt or change statutory instruments.
It has been pointed out that some of the statutory instruments mentioned in the business motion are being grouped together.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cryer: I will just finish this point.
The House does not have the right to amend delegated legislation, which is wrong, because many of the statutory instruments are far longer than the primary legislation which gives the Minister power. That is absurd. it is a convenience for and an abuse by the Executive to put through the House primary legislation consisting of half a dozen clauses with wide enabling powers and then to produce statutory instruments 20 or 30 pages long and containing 40 or 50 enormous schedules.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I will give way, but I have a list and I like to be fair, so I shall give way to hon. Members in the order in which they caught my eye.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—[ Interruption.] It is late, isn't it? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about delegated and primary legislation. I hear him talk about it on many occasions. We put him in a special job. We shunted him along to be Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which includes Members of the House of Lords. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), the new Euro-fanatic, are beginning to wonder what my hon. Friend is doing in the Chair. We hear complaint after complaint. Why is my hon. Friend not delivering the goods? It is time we heard about that. Is my hon. Friend telling me that he is not smart enough to beat Mogadon man?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I am not sure what for, but one has to be courteous on these occasions. My hon. Friend will recall that the order on student loans was withdrawn by a Minister and deferred for almost a week because the Committee had not reported. That was done on the insistence of myself, as Chairman of the Select Committee, and other hon. Members. The House insisted on having the information that we are required by Standing Order to provide.

Mr. Trimble: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's complaints about delegated legislation, which he said was sometimes almost as important as primary legislation, and about the absence of an opportunity to amend it. Does he agree that those points


apply with even greater force when the delegated legislation is primary legislation, as with Orders in Council for Northern Ireland? Will he support us in trying to end that iniquitous system?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has been very good up to now in relating his comments to the business motion. Perhaps he will continue to do so.

Mr. Cryer: I shall, of course, relate what I am saying to the business motion—

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the business motion, which is split into two parts. May I take it that you will be putting both parts separately?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows me better than that. When the time comes, I shall put the motion as it stands.

Mr. Cryer: The scrutiny of delegated legislation is unsatisfactory. Bringing that fact to the attention of the Chamber is an important way of seeking improvements which, I judge, is part of my task as Chairman of the Committees on Statutory Instruments. Raising these points also highlights one difficulty which will be compounded if this business motion were to apply to legislation affecting Northern Ireland—that the scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation, which is under the control of one individual, is less than satisfactory. The Committee receives certain orders governing Northern Ireland, but by no means the whole gamut. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that this matter involves a great issue which needs rectifying.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in my council area of Calderdale, which is covered by one of the orders. From what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, am I right in understanding that the capping of Calderdale council will not be debated separately? This is a serious issue. Indeed, the local council issued a press release earlier tonight to the effect that £1 million will have to be cut from the education budget. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of education spending. Furthermore, there is still selective education—grammar schools—in my constituency.
Is there no way in which we can have a separate debate on the capping of Calderdale council, given that it set the 47th lowest poll tax in the country and, as a result of the capping, will have the fourth lowest? No one—except the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made a political decision—can understand why on earth Calderdale council has been capped. Is there no procedural way in which we can achieve a separate debate on Calderdale council? The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) borders my local authority area. He therefore has a great interest in this matter, because constituents cross from one area to the other.

Mr. Cryer: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has raised an important point on behalf of her constituents. She is concerned about the wicked effects on her constituents of this delegated

legislation, which will be forced on Calderdale local authority with such vicious ruthlessness by the Government. Unfortunately, under the terms of the business motion, which relates to the motion tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the order affecting Calderdale will be one of 16 to be lumped together. That means, in effect, that speeches from 16 hon. Members, one from each constituency affected—there are several representing Calderdale alone—and from 16 Tory Members will just about fill the time allowed for the debate. Yet four other orders are to be taken into account. All the orders should be dealt with separately.
We are therefore faced with an extremely unsatisfactory set of circumstances. That fact emphasises the wide powers granted to Ministers by the House under delegated legislation—but granted only because the Government have a majority. It is rare for Ministers to concede that delegated powers should come to the House. On some occasions—not in these orders—they have powers to produce statutory instruments which do not even have to come back to this place, so I suppose that it is some modest consolation that we shall have at least some debate on the important capping instruments.
I must conclude soon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—because others wish to speak, although I appreciate that there is a general clamour for me to continue. So far, I have been referring to the first half of the motion, but I must comment on the second part.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend pointed out that Calderdale was in the group of 16. That relates to the first part of the business motion. We have been trying to discover why those 16 have been presented in that fashion, why three are in another group and why one—Hillingdon—appears on its own. Can my hon. Friend explain why those areas are being taken separately in that way? Why, for example, does Doncaster appear in the group of three? Why are the 16 lumped together?
I should like to talk about Derbyshire. I want to know why, because of poll tax capping, we cannot have a nursery at the Langwith Bassett school and why other cuts have to be made. If my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and others cannot talk about such matters because the 16 are lumped together, one is bound to wonder whether preferential treatment is being given to Hillingdon.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Minister will spend perhaps an hour or more explaining those points, which will mean that we cannot have an effective debate. The Government spokesman will take a huge chunk of the time allowed under the business motion to explain the intricacies. An hour and a half should be provided for each and every order, with an explanation in each case as to why the capping is taking place in that area. We could then explain the devastation that the Government's decisions are causing to those areas, be they Labour, Tory or Liberal. That devastation is being caused by the actions of the Government, not by the actions of the local authorities.

Mr. Redmond: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is wasting his time talking to Conservatives about democracy? They are interested not in democracy but in dictatorship. If they were interested in democracy, they would not stifle discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises an important point which reflects the fact that we cannot accept the agenda that the Government have set. We have our socialist ideals—[Interruption.] We cannot allow the Tory Government to lay down the agenda of our programme or our thoughts. That danger is ever present and we must guard against it. We must always be prepared to maintain our ideals, such as getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, had we been allowed a debate lasting an hour and a half on each area, we could have debated the Derbyshire situation for that length of time. It could have been a fruitful debate because the nine Derbyshire Members could have divided the 90 minutes equally, taking 10 minutes each. We could all, including the five Conversative Derbyshire Members, have had a say. The Conservative Members could have explained, for instance, whether their views coincided with those of the Conservatives on the county council who do not agree with the Government's proposals for Derbyshire, and my hon. Friends and I would then have had time to explain what is wrong with the poll tax-capping arrangements.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, but unfortunately that is not possible under the business motion. Even if we adopted the system of an hour and a half for each affirmative order, which is less than adequate, the nine 10-minute slots that my hon. Friend proposes would not be adequate, as that would not leave Front Bench Members on either side any time to speak, and Ministers tend to take a long time because they have some difficult explanations to give.
We all know that the Government's political prejudices have led them to pick out 20 Labour-controlled local authorities for deliberate vindictive action. It is difficult to shield that prejudice with talk of being reasonable and fair and adopting objective criteria, when we all know that the criteria are entirely subjective.

Mr. James Lamond: I have listened to my hon. Friend's closely argued points. I noticed that he emphasised the need for hon. Members from areas which have been charge-capped to be heard. He presents a modest case. Hon. Members from areas which have not been capped also have something to say, because the implication for councils such as Oldham borough council is that they will be inhibited in their spending. They will always be looking over their shoulder at councils which have been charge-capped. They are anxious not to be charged-capped. I should like some time in the debate on one of the orders to put that point. Other hon. Members from areas which have not been charge-capped will want to speak about the implications for their councils.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I wish to raise a matter with the Chair because the Chair's ruling on it may affect the rest of my hon. Friend's speech.
I refer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the motion. I wish to relate it to paragraph 2. I raise the matter as an hon. Member whose council has been charge-capped and who wishes to speak in a debate on either Wednesday or Thursday. I wish to speak on the order on the three councils.
The motion says:
Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions".
That is simple enough as far as it goes, but paragraph 2 says:
If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business
will continue thereafter. That suggests that the second part of the motion gives the Chair discretion to allow the debate to continue after 7 o'clock if some hon. Members have not been called.
That is vitally important. I understand that the Prime Minister is to make a statement to the House on Thursday about her visit to the United States. That will take up at least an hour of the time allocated to discussing the orders. If one also takes away the time that will be taken by the Front Bench Members, there will be a maximum of just one hour and 10 minutes for hon. Members to speak in the debate. I should like a ruling from the Chair. If that is the position on 12 July, will the Chair allow the debate to continue after 7 o'clock to allow hon. Members to speak if the debate about their councils has not been reached?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That was a long point of order. The hon. Gentleman has misread the motion. The Chair will have no such discretion.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) is right. As the Leader of the House knows, the business motion will tend to exclude hon. Members who want to comment on the consequential effects of the orders on their constituencies and the people whom they represent. The Leader of the House does not want to encourage or sustain debate, but to rubber stamp the business that the Government want to push through. The Government are exploiting their strength in the House by crushing yet another vestige of local democracy and autonomy.
I do not believe that it would be unreasonable for Mr. Speaker to give preference to those hon. Members whose areas are rate-capped, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton is right that other hon. Members should be able to express a general view about the consequences of such capping.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend mentioned the motion relating to Calderdale. He was mistaken about the number of hon. Members who represent the area—there are only two, myself and the hon. Member for Calder Valley (M r. Thompson). It is important that the views of that hon. Member are heard in a separate debate, as, until recently, he and the Conservative party of Calderdale applauded rate capping. Before the elections in May, they issued a leaflet to say that £50 would be knocked off the bill if people voted Tory. The council was then hung, but the electorate did not vote Tory, and Labour now has control with four seats. It would have been interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say for himself.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will return to the business motion.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is concerned that the business motion will preclude contributions from those on the periphery of the


Calder valley because of the time limitations imposed by it. My hon. Friend is right that hon. Members sometimes say things in their constituencies which are not always made clear in the House, and vice versa. The debate between the two Members representing the Calder valley would have been extremely interesting and illuminating. It would have enabled local people to make a much better judgment as to who represents their interests. Every cent of my money would be on my hon. Friend.
I shall conclude—

Mr. Orme: Other people want to speak.

Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend is right, but he will know that I have had to give way to pressing interventions several times. My speech has lasted only five minutes, but I shall conclude shortly as my right hon. Friend's brow is furrowed and he likes to have a happier demeanour.
The arrangements on the London Underground Bill relating to the Jubilee line have been designed to enable it to speed its way through the House without the usual opportunities for extended debate. The statement by the Prime Minister, business questions and a possible vote on something will not be allowed to take time out of Thursday night. The three hours provided by the business motion will prevent a closure being obtained that night. That closure would mean that the Government would have to bring the Bill back—it is their Bill, after all—on another evening but they are running out of time. That is what this is all about.
The Leader of the House is sitting here complacently as he always does. The Bill will mean that Parliament square is wrecked for upwards of seven years.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Rubbish.

Mr. Cryer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) know about London?

Mr. Cryer: I live here five days a week, I have travelled down here each week for 13 years, and my guess is that the vast majority of Londoners do not want Parliament square turned into a building site for seven years. There are other suitable sites for an interchange, but London Transport does not want them because its own premises are adjacent to them. That is what this is about—and that is why we shall vote against the motion, which is an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am rather surprised to be debating the motion, especially since two major issues are involved—rate capping and the Jubilee line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred to the time that the New Building Sub-Committee spent debating the Jubilee line since hearing that the matter would be dealt with in a private Bill. Because of the importance of the Bill and because 650 elected Members of Parliament would be affected by the proposals, we decided to meet weekly, not for half an hour or for the usual nod as happens on statutory instruments, but for two and half to three hours on a Tuesday night.
On 15 May 1990 we presented a 99-page report to the House. The Leader of the House received that report as the Chairman of the Services Committee, and expressed its thanks for the amount of work that had gone into preparing it. Having prepared it, we expected at least a day to debate it. We were not representing one side of the House; we were representing all Members of Parliament, yet the Government, backed by the Leader of the House, intend to curtail the debate on Thursday night after 7 o'clock. I am rather surprised to find that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been prayed in aid as having pressed the Government to agree to a three-hour debate. How ridiculous that we should come here tonight and discover that we shall be limited to fewer then three hours to debate the Jubilee line and the far-reaching issues that that involves.
The New Building Sub-Committee was faced with the difficulty of deciding how we, as Members of the House, could be responsible for setting up a Committee of hon. Members to deal with issues that directly affect hon. Members. The report says:
Since the House is unable to petition itself in respect of a Private Bill, the Committee have sought to examine those parts of the London Underground Bill where the interests of the House may be 'directly or specially affected', in the expectation that our findings will be taken into account both during the second reading debate and, if that stage is passed, by the Opposed Bill Committee to which the Bill will be referred.
This is a unique Bill in so far as we as Members of the House and the Committee of Selection will be selecting Members to deal with a private Bill in which we have a direct interest as it affects us in Parliament. We should be allowed more than three hours for the debate on this important line. I am amazed that the Leader of the House should limit the debate to three hours.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is right to complain about the restriction of debate on this important Bill. It is said that the work will take seven or eight years. My hon. Friend has had experience of the construction of the building across the road and knows about slippage. Will he confirm that the job is expected to take seven years and that with slippage it could take longer?

Mr. Powell: Specialists employed by the House reported on how long the job would take if we accepted the Jubilee line proposals. The Bill is to be debated on Thursday and will then go to a Committee, which will report to the House. If all the proposals in the plan are accepted by the Committee, the job will take four to five years to complete after the Bill has passed through all its stages. That is the view of the experts. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked about phase 1 of the new building across the road. That has already been delayed 12 months. Phase 2 involves the development of a new station at Westminster, with a raft and offices above it. As the report and the experts suggest, that could well take four or five years.
The Leader of the House said that the motion was moved on Friday. I understand from the Opposition deputy Chief Whip who was in charge of us on Friday, that that was not the case. We were told that agreement had been reached through the usual channels. I have made inquiries and found that there was no such agreement. Why do the Government want to push such an important Bill through the House in three hours?
It would be in the interests of the House to have a long debate on the issues and complications relating to the Jubilee line, because the line will affect the Palace of Westminster and its precincts. It will affect our access to the House, because the proposals for the line include a raft over the roadway around Parliament square, which would raise the road by about 3 ft. The Serjeant at Arms would be charged with making sure that hon. Members had access to the Palace, and he would find it difficult to carry out that task. The matter should be dealt with in great detail, and it cannot be done in three hours.

Mr. James Lamond: In an intervention, the Leader of the House claimed that he is not trying to restrict the debate to three hours, but is acceding to a request in a letter sent to him by the Chairman of Ways and Means asking that at least three hours should be devoted to the debate. In other words, the debate is likely to go on much longer.
When we debated, in the distant past, the construction of the underground car park here, that highly respected and long-serving former Member, Mr. Arthur Lewis, continually said that Big Ben was in danger of collapsing into the hole that was being dug. Thankfully, that did not happen, but I have no doubt that many Members will raise such points, which most of us have not even thought of, but which will have to be carefully examined. What if Mr. Arthur Lewis had been correct? How would we have looked if we had had a guillotined debate and refused to listen to his point about Big Ben and one day it had collapsed? We should have looked foolish if we had forced such a Bill through the House.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise that point. The matter was discussed in Committee at some length. We envisaged a big screw coming up in Parliament square, spewing out all the earth from the Jubilee line. That will happen, the site will be barricaded, and tunnels will come in and out to ensure that there is a new station at Westminster. In all probability, the ex-Member to whom he referred, Mr. Lewis, was right when he talked about the underground car park being dug. The foundations of the very building that we are in now, could well have been affected.

Mr. Redmond: Did the Committee discuss whether the water table beneath the Palace of Westminster, from which we get water for use within the building, would be contaminated?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting detailed questions to his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that do not relate to the business of the House motion, so I shall save the hon. Member for Ogmore from responding to them, because I know that he will want to deal with the business of the House motion.

Mr. Powell: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are right. But this is a relevant point—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not at all relevant, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Powell: Paragraphs 16 to 27 of the Committee's report mention the "considerable dismay" with which it first heard about the Jubilee line proposal. Its members regretted that neither they nor the authorities of the House were consulted earlier. I cannot understand why there is such a rush now. Why were not hon. Members, officials of

the House and the New Building Sub-Committee consulted, because the effects of the development of phase 2—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: London needs railways more than we need offices.

Mr. Powell: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has a good office, but some Members are desperately in need of office accommodation, which is what the New Building Sub-Committee has been trying to develop. However, the Government are more concerned about getting the London Underground Bill on the statute book, come hell or high water, and are not particularly concerned about the interests of Members and the New Building Sub-Committee that we are trying to establish to ensure that hon. Members have accommodation.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would know more than anyone else that hon. Members are stuck in the cloisters working in office accommodation that would not be tolerated anywhere outside this building. Instead of having the Government's co-operation to establish a building to accommodate Members, we are highballed by London Underground. It is important that we have far more than a three-hour debate on Thursday—which is all that is promised—to deal with such an important and emotive issue.
We have discussed two motions tonight and it is now 11.19 pm. I should have wished to continue for another hour at least. Some hon. Members do not have the time to sit down, read and digest all the lengthy reports published by the different Committees. The report that we are discussing has 99 pages dealing with accommodation and premises for the House of Commons. It also deals with the Jubilee line proposals that will make Parliament square a building site for at least five years. We must think about all the visitors to London. It will not be a temporary building site for 12 months or less; it will be with us for at least four or five years, and the whole site will be boarded up. We are not being given the time for debate that the proposals deserve.
Tonight we are debating only the Government's motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall our discussions and the report of Services Committee about the delay in phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. Surely we do not want delays in the building of phase 2. He would have had the full co-operation of the New Building Sub-Committee and of Opposition Members if he had introduced the proposals properly and allocated time for them to be discussed in detail.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not think that he can force through such issues because the Government have a 100-plus majority. I remind him that the Bill first has to go through the private Bill Committee. Unless the proposals of the New Building Sub-Committee, which were presented to the House and to London Transport, are accepted, I doubt whether hon. Members, when they read the report and understand the devastation that will be caused in the area surrounding Parliament, will be eager to pass the Bill without reservation. Indeed, I even doubt whether Conservative Members will give the Bill their blessing.
I hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Thursday evening.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to the serious points raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I hope that, within the bounds of order, I can acknowledge the debt that the House owes to him and his colleagues on the New Building Sub-Committee for their work on that great project. I share his dismay at the pace at which phase 1 of the new building has gone ahead. I understand the sense of unease, to put it mildly, that he and his colleagues felt about the way in which London Transport originally presented the proposals to the Sub-Committee. All those points were fair.
I hope that I shall not be regarded as offensive if I say that my recollection of the purpose of the Labour party that was born in Ogmore, in Aberavon, in my south Wales and in the remainder of the country, was to build the new Jerusalem. I am slightly dismayed by the tone of some Opposition Members, suggesting that they are more concerned about viewing Parliament square and these buildings as though they were museum curators. We have an enormous task and challenge ahead of us. We must shape the modern buildings that can be put on that side of Parliament street in a fashion appropriate to Parliament in the next millenium.
Of course, the conditions spelt out by the New Building Sub-Committee need to be considered with care, but we have an opportunity that we should reach out for, if we possibly can, and it is in that sense that I have responded to the requests made by the Chairman of Ways and Means in relation to this debate.
I was fascinated, as always, by the observations of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) when he intervened at an early stage in the debate to say that he entirely endorsed the first part of my motion and was not seeking to oppose it, which was quite understandable, as it was agreed through the usual channels. I announced the business for tomorrow and Thursday to the House last Thursday. There was ample opportunity to query it, but it has not been taken up. I was fascinated by the skill with which he was able to develop his non-opposition to that benign part of the motion for a minute or two, in the course of his brief observations.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his agreement to support the motion. I understand his anxiety about the reported uncertainty surrounding the two stations south of the river. A number of hon. Members will want to hear more about that matter, but I am glad that he agrees that three hours are necessary for the debate.
I cannot do more than ensure that the three hours which would normally be allotted tomorrow are not curtailed by voting for a shorter time. I tabled the second half of this motion in response to the Chairman of Ways and Means. He said that he felt
there is sufficient interest in this Bill to warrant Members being given a full three hours debating time.
That is what we are seeking to provide by the second part of the motion.
The Government are acting to protect the time that will be available for private business in this way. We would not want to curtail that, even if it were in our power to do so. We support the concept of a three-hour debate in respect of that. On that basis, I hope that the House will regard the

second part of the motion with as much enthusiasm as it apparently regards the first part. I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 50.

Division No. 289]
[11.27 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Amess, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Amos, Alan
Hunter, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jack, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Janman, Tim


Ashby, David
Jessel, Toby


Atkins, Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Atkinson, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baldry, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Batiste, Spencer
Knapman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Benyon, W.
Knowles, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knox, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lang, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bowis, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brazier, Julian
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bright, Graham
Lightbown, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Livsey, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lord, Michael


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclean, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mans, Keith


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carttiss, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cash, William
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Miller, Sir Hal


Chope, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Cran, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Norris, Steve


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Devlin, Tim
Pawsey, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dover, Den
Raffan, Keith


Dunn, Bob
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Durant, Tony
Rathbone, Tim


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fallon, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Favell, Tony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Ryder, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shaw, David (Dover)


Grist, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Harris, David
Speller, Tony


Hayward, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stern, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Stevens, Lewis


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Summerson, Hugo






Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wallace, James



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Watts, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Wells, Bowen



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beggs, Roy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Carr, Michael
Maxton, John


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michael, Alun


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Redmond, Martin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fyfe, Maria
Salmond, Alex


Graham, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Trimble, David


Hood, Jimmy
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Vaz, Keith


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McCartney, Ian
Wray, Jimmy


McFall, John



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Madden, Max
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Resolved,

That—
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 th July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions; and
(2)If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

PETITIONS

Schools (Leicestershire)

Mr. Keith Vaz: I have three petitions to present. The first is signed by 100 Leicester residents concerning the current levels of experience of members of the teaching profession in Leicestershire and the lack of teachers in local primary and secondary schools. They are concerned that there are so many vacancies in the county and they would like Government expenditure on education to be increased in order to provide additional teachers.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons calls upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the education of future generations is not jeopardised by this lack of funding and further calls upon him to increase the funding available for education and to secure the best teaching staff available for our children.
The second petition is signed by 246 residents of Humberstone, Thurncourt, Coleman and Evington and concerns the A46-A47 link road, which will go through the eastern part of my constituency. The petitioners are concerned that the local authority and others are not sufficiently taking into account the safety standards of the proposed road. They are concerned, because many schools are near the route, about the possibility of injury to children. It says:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the views of the residents of Humberstone, Thurncourt, Coleman and Evington during his considerations of the Appeals against compulsory purchase orders, and other objections related to the two routes planned by Leicestershire County Council. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The last petition concerns the lack of lollipop ladies outside schools in Leicestershire. Local residents, in particular the parents of young children, are concerned that there are few lollipop patrols. They believe, and I support their belief, that that is because of the appalling wages paid to lollipop ladies. We face the prospect of children having to stay in school for longer hours because there are no lollipop ladies or gentlemen available.
The petition has been signed by 339 residents, who say :
Wherefore your Peititioners pray that your honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to provide more central funding for provision of this vital service to protect our children, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the table.

Hepatitis B Vaccine

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Robert Litherland: I welcome the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate an extremely serious subject relating to the hepatitis virus. My purpose is to attempt to exercise the minds of Ministers and, hopefully, to draw public attention to the need for vaccination for high-risk groups who come into contact with hepatitis carriers in their normal work.
The word "hepatitis" is well known, but we usually relate it to yellow jaundice and assume that it is the fancy medical term for that condition. Hepatitis is often a short illness leading to jaundice, and most patients recover within a few weeks or months. That hepatitis virus comes under category A. Regrettably, there is more than one type of the virus. Hepatitis A never produces permanent disease, but hepatitis B and C do, and they do not respond to antibiotics. Like hepatitis B, the C virus is transmitted through contact with infected blood and body fluids. Little is known of the C virus, there is no vaccination to protect against it and no established cure.
However, the hepatitis B virus, with which I am concerned in this short debate, can be prevented if resources, education and intention by the Government are brought into operation. My concern about the seriousness of hepatitis B was stimulated by a pamphlet produced by the Russell Harty hepatitis and liver research fund. Normally, we pay scant attention to the volumes of circulars that come in our mail, and this pamphlet was almost doomed for the waste-paper bin burial ground, but on the front was a challenge—"Dare you read on?" I took the challenge and read on.
The pamphlet outlined how the fund began, its aims and the startling information which made me sit up and think. Two hundred and eighty-five million people are carriers of this virus. Hepatitis B can live outside the body of the carrier, which makes it easier to catch than the virus that causes AIDS. It can be caught simply by coming into close contact with a carrier and unknowingly absorbing the virus from contaminated blood, from saliva, from tears, from semen, from vaginal secretions and even from perspiration through small cracks in the skin. It can be caught by kissing an infected person or by sharing a toothbrush, a razor blade or needles. The most chilling fact was that hepatitis B kills more people worldwide in one day than AIDS does in a whole year. Who can catch the virus? The answer is, every one of us.
Hepatitis B can be prevented by vaccination, and that is why I want to raise the problem of the low take-up of the hepatitis B vaccine among high-risk groups, which demonstrates a miserable lack of action by the Government. Despite Government advice that members of high-risk groups should be vaccinated, we have no Department of Health figures or studies on the current level of vaccine take-up. I call on the Government radically to increase their responsibilities in this area.
Hepatitis B is a potentially fatal viral condition which affects the liver. The virus is more than 100 times more infectious than HIV. About 2 million people worldwide die each year of hepatitis B infection. In the United Kingdom, the annual reported incidence of acute hepatitis B has been about 1,000. The exact number of carriers is not known,

but it is estimated to be more than 50,000. There is no effective treatment for hepatitis B, and the best prevention of infection is vaccination.
The hepatitis B vaccine is available on national health service prescription to all high-risk groups, although many general practitioners appear still to be confused about who is entitled to receive it. In line with the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association recommends that active immunisation is provided for health care staff in frequent contact with blood, needles or other sharp instruments in the community, in hospital or in dental departments. The Royal College of Nursing also supports the recommendations of the World Health Organisation and stresses that all nurses, including junior nurses, should be vaccinated. The RCN also recognises that there is a special risk to student nurses who regularly change their area of specialty and whose lack of experience makes them especially vulnerable to needlestick injuries.
The British Dental Association also supports the WHO guidelines and has issued a set of guidelines of its own on the prevention of infection and cross-infection for all dental health workers. The guidelines call for all clinical dental professionals to be immunised against the virus as soon as possible. Many other organisations and trade unions follow and recommend the WHO guidelines.
The incidence of hepatitis B in institutions, especially those for the mentally ill, has been significantly higher than in the general population. One recent survey found evidence of past infection in almost half the patients in a large mental hospital. Nursing and administrative staff who come into contact with highly unpredictable patients are inevitably at risk of infection. One tragic example is that of a psychiatric nurse, Thomas Rowe, who died from hepatitis B after being bitten by a patient at the Turner Village hospital in Colchester.
Accidental needlestick injuries from syringes infected with hepatitis B or HIV have become increasingly common. A number of cases have occurred among staff working in needle and syringe exchange schemes. The growing number of arbitrary cases is especially worrying, ranging from the reported cases of refuse collectors and road sweepers receiving pricks from discarded needles, to a young girl in Rhos-on-Sea receiving a needlestick injury after pricking her finger on a discarded syringe in a pub beer garden. I have also received many complaints from parents and grandparents about syringes and needles being found in school playgrounds. Vaccination to cover all such eventualities would be a massive operation, but high-risk groups at least should have the opportunity of vaccination.
Vaccination is usually given in three separate doses—an initial vaccination, followed by further doses one and six months later. A booster vaccination is recommended every three years. A course of treatment costs £30—not a great deal of money when compared with the cost of treatment once the virus is contracted and with the pain and misery suffered by the patient.
Sadly, because the hepatitis B virus is not new and has not captured public concern in the way that the AIDS virus has, it lacks a comparably high profile, and its virulence and potential danger are generally unknown among the public at large. Although incidence of acute hepatitis B is falling, due to more effective measures of protection, the absence of any official statistics and a


general apathy towards monitoring vaccination of staff and reporting incidents within health authorities have resulted in a confused and ill-informed picture.
To illustrate this point, I would point out that a young nurse recently contracted hepatitis B at Stoke Mandeville hospital after she was exposed to a contagious patient. During prosecution of Aylesbury Vale health authority, it transpired that a policy change in vaccinating staff had resulted in nurses having to wait six months before receiving vaccination. There are all too many cases of nurses and other health care workers contracting the virus through inefficient hospital management.
Particularly worrying in the United Kingdom is the significant number of people who get hepatitis B because of the kind of work they do. Hepatitis B has long been identified as an occupational risk to those whose work brings them into contact with blood and body fluids—such as doctors, nurses, dentists, laboratory workers, the emergency services, prison staff, and those who work with the mentally handicapped. Intravenous drug abusers and practising homosexuals are also vulnerable. There is therefore a real risk of infection for those whose work or life style brings them into contact with blood and other body fluids and who have not yet received vaccination.
Last year, the Russell Harty hepatitis and liver research fund was set up to promote awareness of the risks of hepatitis B, following the death of Russell Harty from the virus. The chairman of the fund, Alan Tomlinson, lost his nine-year-old son in 1982 as a result of his contracting hepatitis B. Both were treated at the liver disease unit of the St. James's hospital, Leeds, which is providing a focal point for the fund's activities.
In 1988, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that named high-risk groups and their families should be vaccinated against hepatitis B. However, no new money was provided, no programme of vaccinations was set up and no follow-up monitoring was established.
From independent research undertaken in the last year, the fund believes that there is widespread ignorance among at-risk groups about the dangers of contracting the virus. It also believes that many GPs lack adequate information about the at-risk groups and that health authorities are treating the management and monitoring of vaccination programmes for own staff as a low priority. As a result of that inefficient state of affairs, people are dying needlessly.
The critical need for better management and application of the JCVI recommendations is clear and has been ignored by the Government. The inadequate provision of educational information about the dangers of hepatitis B to high-risk groups is a scandal.
Because of the lack of awareness and widespread ignorance of the dangers of hepatitis B, plus the inadequate funding of the health service, the regional health authority gives no lead and has a blinkered approach to this serious subject. The cost of immunising health service personnel and other high risk groups must be weighed against the financial demands for routine health care; so I urge the Minister to commit himself to a number of actions to redress the appalling threat to human suffering.
The Government should give an assurance that no member of a high-risk group will be denied vaccination against hepatitis B. The Government should institute their own monitoring programme to ensure comprehensive vaccination uptake according to JCVI guidelines. They

should add hepatitis B to the screen study that is currently in progress on the incidence of AIDS and HIV. The Health Education Authority should conduct an education campaign targeted at identified high-risk groups, their families and prescribing physicians. Hepatitis B is no respecter of persons. That is why I ask the Government to act now and save lives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) will not take it amiss if I express regret at the outset that he alleged that there was a division between the action that he wants taken and the stance that the Government have adopted. There is no substantial difference, and any attempt to establish a difference between his position and ours is, as I shall argue, not soundly based.
The hon. Gentleman began by emphasising the terrible nature of hepatitis B as a disease, and there is no dispute about that. It can often be fatal. Whenever the opportunity exists to prevent or impede the spread of a potentially fatal disease, we shall take what action we can to achieve that result.
The hon. Gentleman stressed that the disease was widespread elsewhere in the world. That threat we must recognise and take seriously, although we are entitled to look at the scale of the threat that the disease represents in this country, because it is to this country's resident population that our principal effort in terms of prevention must be directed.
The welcome news in the context of hepatitis B is the fact, as the hon. Gentleman emphasised, that a vaccination has been available for some years which immunises the vaccinated individual against contracting the disease. The cornerstone of his case, and the cornerstone of the Government's position, is that that vaccination should be available to anyone who is at any serious, identifiable risk of contracting hepatitis B.
That is why, to take up the first of the three objectives that the hon. Gentleman set in his concluding remarks, the Government have no difficulty in giving the assurance that no member of a high-risk group should be denied vaccination against hepatitis B. Indeed, that is our policy. We are entitled to say that that policy has been carried through in the past few years with a degree of success.
The figures on the development of the disease in Britain in the past five years are startling. The number of individuals who have been vaccinated—both the hon. Gentleman and the Government want the vaccine to be made available to high-risk people—has increased from under 19,000 in 1985 to an average of more than 300,000 in 1988 and 1989. The figure for 1988 was 325,000 and the figure for 1989 was 294,000. The vaccination programme has run at a rate of 300,000 individuals per year. We do not yet know the full life of the protection provided by the vaccine, but we are advised that we can expect that vaccination will be effective for a minimum of five years. If one adds up the figures in the past five years, roughly 850,000 individuals have received protection as a result of the vaccination programme that the Government set in place.
The effect of the vaccination programme on the development of the disease is remarkable. In 1985, a total of 1,785 cases of hepatitis B were reported. By last year, on


the provisional figures available to us, the incidence had fallen to 560 cases. We have cut the incidence of the disease by more than two thirds in five years by adopting precisely the commitment to vaccination that the hon. Gentleman espoused. That is not a sound foundation for the party political attack that the hon. Gentleman directed at the Government.
Other figures on the development of the disease show that in 1985 545 cases of hepatitis B were directly attributable to drug abuse. By 1988, that figure had dropped to 108 cases—a fall of almost 80 per cent. The incidence of hepatitis B among homosexual men had fallen from 128 reported cases in 1985 to 52 in 1988. The incidence among health service staff fell from 47 cases in 1985 to 24 in 1988.
The end result of the vaccination programme is to reduce the number of deaths caused by hepatitis B. I can report to the House that the number of deaths attributable to hepatitis B has been effectively stable throughout the whole period from 1985 to 1989. The highest number of deaths was in 1987, when the total was 69. The total reported in 1989 was 58.
I simply do not accept that it is a fair representation of the record of the past few years to say that vaccination has not been available to those who need it. On the contrary, the evidence is that the vaccination programme has grown considerably. The effect of the programme is there for all to see in the number of reported cases of development of the disease.
We have stressed, as the hon. Gentleman stressed, that vaccination must be available to high-risk groups. There is no constituency for the argument that immunisation should be available to all adults. The vast majority of adults are not at any appreciable risk of contracting the disease. The Government therefore accept the proposition that the vaccination should be available to high-risk groups. The broad categories that the hon. Gentleman described are not a cause for contention between us.
We do not accept, however, that every policeman should be vaccinated against hepatitis B. There are some individuals within the police force who should be vaccinated because they are at risk, but a policeman on duty in the House does not face an appreciable risk of contracting hepatitis B. Resources will always be scarce and I do not think that it would be sensible to spend more than £30 vaccinating a policeman in the House against hepatitis B when he cannot by any stretch of imagination be judged to be in a high-risk group.
The hon. Gentleman repeated several times that high-risk groups should have access to the vaccination. That is not disputed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman also argued that the Government should provide better information on the rate of take-up of the vaccine. I have given the figures relating to the number of vaccinations against the disease and the number of reported cases. Information is not in short supply, as hepatitis B is a notifiable disease and proper laboratory tests are carried out, when appropriate, as a result of that notification process. In that respect, the disease is unlike AIDS, where the same disciplines do not apply, for reasons familar to the House.
The Government have access to information as to the spread of the disease and the rate of vaccination against that spread. If the hon. Gentleman wishes us to publish the take-up as a percentage of the target group, there is a difficulty. As the policy is to ensure that vaccination is available to high-risk groups, it is difficult to produce an accepted denominator to work out the percentage represented by the number of vaccinations given, because we cannot accurately identify every person in the community who is a member of a high-risk group. We have sought to ensure that every individual who is in such a group is made aware of that risk and of the fact that vaccination is available to prevent the spread of the disease. I do not accept the argument that there is a shortage of information about the spread of the disease. I accept that we have been unable to produce a percentage breakdown of target group, but I do not believe that that is achievable in practice.
Bearing in mind the fact that the disease is a notifiable one and that a reporting regime is available through the public health laboratory service and that information is available to general practitioners through any number of channels, I do not accept that there is a paucity of information about the dangers of the spread of the disease among the high-risk groups or about the availability of vaccination to prevent that spread.
The hon. Gentleman also alleged that no funding was available for vaccination, but I suppose that that is ritual comment on any subject to do with the national health service. It is true that there is not special central funding, and nor should there be. We are talking about relatively small sums of money in the £29 billion budget of the Department of Health. It is an entirely proper obligation for health authorities, on behalf of their populations, to make such protection available to high-risk groups, and there is no serious evidence to support the view that vaccination has not been available to any high-risk individual on the grounds of a local lack of funding.
In conclusion, I return to the factual background to the successful control of this terrible disease in Britain. I do not dispute for one moment that it is a substantial killer elsewhere in the world and that it is far from being under control on the earth's surface, but we in Britain can claim that we have successfully made information available so that those who are at risk of contracting it have that fact drawn to their attention, and that effective arrangements have been made to ensure that those who are at risk, and to whom the education programme that the hon. Gentleman espoused and which we have sought to put in place is directed, understand that vaccination is available. The effectiveness of that policy is shown by the fact that, in five years, we have reduced the number of reported cases of the disease by two thirds.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the serious problem of the control of the spread of a terrible disease. We want to continue to do better, so that its further spread is inhibited altogether, but cutting the incidence of the diseases by two thirds in the past five years cannot be said to be anything other than one of the successes of the NHS.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.